MAC & PC

"Not so quick" wrote in news:CByrb.13424
$:

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker.

Nope. RageMaker sucks in all of it’s implementations.

<snip>

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in news:CByrb.13424
$:

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker.

Nope. RageMaker sucks in all of it’s implementations.

<snip>

I’ve never had that opinion about the Mac version.
At least it printed simple tiff images correctly to
a non-postscript printer.

"Not so quick" wrote in news:e3Drb.14714
$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in news:CByrb.13424
$:

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker.

Nope. RageMaker sucks in all of it’s implementations.

<snip>

I’ve never had that opinion about the Mac version.

You’ve lead a sheltered life.

At least it printed simple tiff images correctly to
a non-postscript printer.

Maybe. But it also likes sending extra spot plates that don’t exist, won’t show invisibles and tabs at the same time, and then does even more retarded things such as scaling everything in a group but the text.

Blaming Windows for PageMaker for being crap certainly lets us know where you got your nick.

I’ve been using the latest version of PageMaker with Wintel for the past year. Aside from it being a POS program (a client requires it be used for publications development) it has run fine.

"Not so quick" wrote in message

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker. I can’t print to
my large format printer with the windows
version of PM and I could with the MAC.
Adobe has no good explanation since
Photoshop prints fine and they can’t seem to
get PM to print the same way for the graphics.
Unless of course, you buy Acrobat for $300
or upgrade an old version. I have ver 3.0 which
doesn’t qualify for an upgrade. why, ask
Adobe.

i used pagemaker on windows for a long time.
it kinda worked fine, if you don’t actually want to do anything creative. and if you don’t mind all the bugs.
and if you don’t mind the c**p pdf output.
and if you don’t mind the fact that nobody uses pagemaker and its just about impossible to get anything to a service bureau.
theres enough pooh-pooing about indesign around, which is a zillion times better than pagemaker.

my personal opinion?

buy some better software. you’ll get all the money back in the time you’re spending trying to do things in pagemaker which take seconds to do in other apps.

its a bit far fetched to say, but to me pagemaker is just like a glorified microsoft word for print design.

of course i will reiterate that this is all my personal opinion, and i’m far from professional 🙂 so take it or leave it.

"Not so quick" wrote in message

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker. I can’t print to
my large format printer with the windows
version of PM and I could with the MAC.
Adobe has no good explanation since
Photoshop prints fine and they can’t seem to
get PM to print the same way for the graphics.
Unless of course, you buy Acrobat for $300
or upgrade an old version. I have ver 3.0 which
doesn’t qualify for an upgrade. why, ask
Adobe.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in news:e3Drb.14714
$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in news:CByrb.13424
$:

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker.

Nope. RageMaker sucks in all of it’s implementations.

<snip>

I’ve never had that opinion about the Mac version.

You’ve lead a sheltered life.

At least it printed simple tiff images correctly to
a non-postscript printer.

Maybe. But it also likes sending extra spot plates that don’t exist, won’t show invisibles and tabs at the same time, and then does even more

retarded

things such as scaling everything in a group but the text.
Blaming Windows for PageMaker for being crap certainly lets us know where you got your nick.

It’s kind of silly to call Pagemaker a crappy program
without saying what you are comparing it to. I didn’t
blame windows, I wonder why Adobe decided to put
out a new program instead of fixing the one they had.
Obviously, if Photoshop can print in windows then
it’s not a windows problem. duh.
You’re trying to sound like a major expert by bringing
up minor flaws in the program. It used to be that you
couldn’t get text to wrap, there was only one master
page, etc. and Quark wasn’t that great either.

I personally save my work as tiff’s in photoshop and drop them into quack express it prints out large format with incredible excellence. "Not so quick" wrote in message

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker. I can’t print to
my large format printer with the windows
version of PM and I could with the MAC.
Adobe has no good explanation since
Photoshop prints fine and they can’t seem to
get PM to print the same way for the graphics.
Unless of course, you buy Acrobat for $300
or upgrade an old version. I have ver 3.0 which
doesn’t qualify for an upgrade. why, ask
Adobe.

"Ruth" wrote in message

i used pagemaker on windows for a long time.
it kinda worked fine, if you don’t actually want to do anything creative. and if you don’t mind all the bugs.
and if you don’t mind the c**p pdf output.
and if you don’t mind the fact that nobody uses pagemaker and its just

about

impossible to get anything to a service bureau.
theres enough pooh-pooing about indesign around, which is a zillion times better than pagemaker.

my personal opinion?

buy some better software. you’ll get all the money back in the time you’re spending trying to do things in pagemaker which take seconds to do in

other

apps.

Really, I just wanted to set up some templates for picture collages (whatever when you have a bunch of pictures
together, pretty much the same size) and it was kind of
clumbsy in Photoshop. The output was terrible. I used to use Pagemaker for newsletters, when I was in the business, but haven’t for years. I just can’t imagine it being that bad, because it was pretty easy to use back 5 years ago.

What kind of creative things are you trying to do with
Pagemaker? Must be pretty complex. I’m just po’ed that
PM version won’t print like the Mac, and I’m really sure Adobe could fix it, and they wouldn’t give me back my
$100, even thought there was a moneyback, and I was
working with them on the problem for beyond the 30
days, and now they won’t upgrade from version 3 of
Acrobat. Sound like schwerd (sp) marketing by Quark.

its a bit far fetched to say, but to me pagemaker is just like a glorified microsoft word for print design.

of course i will reiterate that this is all my personal opinion, and i’m

far

from professional 🙂 so take it or leave it.

"Not so quick" wrote in message

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker. I can’t print to
my large format printer with the windows
version of PM and I could with the MAC.
Adobe has no good explanation since
Photoshop prints fine and they can’t seem to
get PM to print the same way for the graphics.
Unless of course, you buy Acrobat for $300
or upgrade an old version. I have ver 3.0 which
doesn’t qualify for an upgrade. why, ask
Adobe.

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:UiQrb.20596$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in news:e3Drb.14714
$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:CByrb.13424 $:

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker.

Nope. RageMaker sucks in all of it’s implementations.

<snip>

I’ve never had that opinion about the Mac version.

You’ve lead a sheltered life.

At least it printed simple tiff images correctly to
a non-postscript printer.

Maybe. But it also likes sending extra spot plates that don’t exist, won’t show invisibles and tabs at the same time, and then does even more

retarded

things such as scaling everything in a group but the text.
Blaming Windows for PageMaker for being crap certainly lets us know where you got your nick.

It’s kind of silly to call Pagemaker a crappy program
without saying what you are comparing it to.

What, exactly, is wrong with criticizing something for costing unneccesary time and money?

But I cannot think of a pro level layout package – what PageMangler allegedly was – that isn’t better, either for the specific purpose they were targeted at, or as a general-purpose layout machine.

I didn’t blame windows,

Then why did you mention it?

I wonder why Adobe decided to put
out a new program instead of fixing the one they had.

That’s the first time you’ve mentioned such.

But the answer is obvious: the codebase sucks. Starting from scratch made more sense than wasting more time trying to polish a turd.

Obviously, if Photoshop can print in windows then
it’s not a windows problem. duh.
You’re trying to sound like a major expert by bringing
up minor flaws in the program.

No one who has been hamstrung by these "minor" flaws would characterize them as minor. No prepress operator who has to explain excessive wastage would characterize them as minor. No layout artist who tried to clean up a Suzie Secretary text document with nothing but the retarded Story Editor would do so. No one who had to tweak an ad for five different page sizes would either.

It used to be that you
couldn’t get text to wrap, there was only one master
page, etc. and Quark wasn’t that great either.

It also used to be we put out single lines of type and pasted it onto artboards. That doesn’t mean it was a good idea in 1998.

For most of the time that I’ve been exposed to RageMaker, it’s competition has been superior.

I though PageMaker was the biggest pile of …. well, not good. My client is a huge automaker and makes software decisions on a glacial timescale. All of their printing outfits are required to use this old dog, so the creative vendors have to use it too. It served it’s purpose as a pioneer program but it’s high time for it to be consigned to the great obsolete software bin.

"Ruth" wrote in message

i used pagemaker on windows for a long time.
it kinda worked fine, if you don’t actually want to do anything creative. and if you don’t mind all the bugs.
and if you don’t mind the c**p pdf output.
and if you don’t mind the fact that nobody uses pagemaker and its just

about

impossible to get anything to a service bureau.
theres enough pooh-pooing about indesign around, which is a zillion times better than pagemaker.

my personal opinion?

buy some better software. you’ll get all the money back in the time you’re spending trying to do things in pagemaker which take seconds to do in

other

apps.

its a bit far fetched to say, but to me pagemaker is just like a glorified microsoft word for print design.

of course i will reiterate that this is all my personal opinion, and i’m

far

from professional 🙂 so take it or leave it.

"Not so quick" wrote in message

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker. I can’t print to
my large format printer with the windows
version of PM and I could with the MAC.
Adobe has no good explanation since
Photoshop prints fine and they can’t seem to
get PM to print the same way for the graphics.
Unless of course, you buy Acrobat for $300
or upgrade an old version. I have ver 3.0 which
doesn’t qualify for an upgrade. why, ask
Adobe.

It’s kind of silly to call Pagemaker a crappy program
without saying what you are comparing it to. I didn’t
blame windows, I wonder why Adobe decided to put
out a new program instead of fixing the one they had.
Obviously, if Photoshop can print in windows then
it’s not a windows problem. duh.
You’re trying to sound like a major expert by bringing
up minor flaws in the program. It used to be that you
couldn’t get text to wrap, there was only one master
page, etc. and Quark wasn’t that great either.

er, excuse me for being thick but are you trying to say that photoshop is a new version of pagemaker??? well, just in case you are may i put you straight and say that they aren’t. 🙂

if you are asking about pagemaker putting out indesign instead of upgrading pagemaker, its because they are offering 2 separate products,

Pagemaker is geared for business users who want to make smart, professional looking documents.
InDesign is geared for creative professionals who are designing artwork for print.

Pagemaker is not geared for doing anything that requires professional print output.
IMHO.

Ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:ZpQrb.20635$:

"Ruth" wrote in message

i used pagemaker on windows for a long time.
it kinda worked fine, if you don’t actually want to do anything creative. and if you don’t mind all the bugs.
and if you don’t mind the c**p pdf output.
and if you don’t mind the fact that nobody uses pagemaker and its just

about

impossible to get anything to a service bureau.
theres enough pooh-pooing about indesign around, which is a zillion times better than pagemaker.

my personal opinion?

buy some better software. you’ll get all the money back in the time you’re spending trying to do things in pagemaker which take seconds to do in

other

apps.

Really, I just wanted to set up some templates for picture collages (whatever when you have a bunch of pictures
together, pretty much the same size)

Then using a frame-based layout app would be much better anyways.

<snip>

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:UiQrb.20596$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in news:e3Drb.14714
$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:CByrb.13424 $:

I had to start a new topic. One thing about
the PC that is worse than the MAC is the
implementation of Pagemaker.

Nope. RageMaker sucks in all of it’s implementations.

<snip>

I’ve never had that opinion about the Mac version.

You’ve lead a sheltered life.

At least it printed simple tiff images correctly to
a non-postscript printer.

Maybe. But it also likes sending extra spot plates that don’t exist, won’t show invisibles and tabs at the same time, and then does even more

retarded

things such as scaling everything in a group but the text.
Blaming Windows for PageMaker for being crap certainly lets us know where you got your nick.

It’s kind of silly to call Pagemaker a crappy program
without saying what you are comparing it to.

What, exactly, is wrong with criticizing something for costing unneccesary time and money?

But I cannot think of a pro level layout package – what PageMangler allegedly was – that isn’t better, either for the specific purpose they were targeted at, or as a general-purpose layout machine.

I didn’t blame windows,

Then why did you mention it?

I wonder why Adobe decided to put
out a new program instead of fixing the one they had.

That’s the first time you’ve mentioned such.

But the answer is obvious: the codebase sucks. Starting from scratch made more sense than wasting more time trying to polish a turd.

Obviously, if Photoshop can print in windows then
it’s not a windows problem. duh.
You’re trying to sound like a major expert by bringing
up minor flaws in the program.

No one who has been hamstrung by these "minor" flaws would characterize them as minor. No prepress operator who has to explain excessive wastage would characterize them as minor. No layout artist who tried to clean up a Suzie Secretary text document with nothing but the retarded Story Editor would do so. No one who had to tweak an ad for five different page sizes would either.

It used to be that you
couldn’t get text to wrap, there was only one master
page, etc. and Quark wasn’t that great either.

It also used to be we put out single lines of type and pasted it onto artboards. That doesn’t mean it was a good idea in 1998.
For most of the time that I’ve been exposed to RageMaker, it’s competition has been superior.

Sorry, I mentioned Windows because my Mac version worked and my Windows version didn’t. Forget the part about where I said you were trying to act like a big shot, my bad.
: -)

If rewriting Pagemaker makes sense then buying it first and then competing with it doesn’t make sense to me. Did they give PM owners a chance to upgrade to whatever the new marketing strategy is? I’ve always, well almost always, found workarounds to minor flaws, but I haven’t done as much work as you. I have sent large publications to service bureaus without problems in PM, though. 4 color, odd page sizes, on a tight deadline.

I think it’s a matter of how spoiled/grateful you are with newer features. I mean, if what you’ve got beats what you had then you’re happy, but if you’ve used something better than what you’ve got is going to look bad.

What kind of problems did you have to correct in PM’s story editor that was so difficult? Most of the things I had to correct that were complicated, I did in Word or WordPerfect (because of the great macro language). Don’t the styles from Word come through perfectly? Story editor isn’t sold as a word processor. Does Quark have a lot better editor? Better than Word?

Anyway, I guess I’m glad that I’m not in that line of work anymore. The stress level is pretty high, although my friends in CPS don’t think so. : -)

I’m not say Photoshop is a new version of Pagemaker.
It just would be easier for me to lay out photos in PM,
but I can’t do that because they won’t print.

Actually, Adobe told me that InDesign wouldn’t
print to non-postscript printer either. Maybe I talked
to the wrong person. I have an Epson 3000, large format
printer that I can’t use with the Windows version of PM.

"Ruth" wrote in message

It’s kind of silly to call Pagemaker a crappy program
without saying what you are comparing it to. I didn’t
blame windows, I wonder why Adobe decided to put
out a new program instead of fixing the one they had.
Obviously, if Photoshop can print in windows then
it’s not a windows problem. duh.
You’re trying to sound like a major expert by bringing
up minor flaws in the program. It used to be that you
couldn’t get text to wrap, there was only one master
page, etc. and Quark wasn’t that great either.

er, excuse me for being thick but are you trying to say that photoshop is

a

new version of pagemaker??? well, just in case you are may i put you straight and say that they aren’t. 🙂

if you are asking about pagemaker putting out indesign instead of

upgrading

pagemaker, its because they are offering 2 separate products,
Pagemaker is geared for business users who want to make smart,

professional

looking documents.
InDesign is geared for creative professionals who are designing artwork

for

print.

Pagemaker is not geared for doing anything that requires professional

print

output.
IMHO.

Ruth

"belowme" wrote in message

I personally save my work as tiff’s in photoshop and drop them into quack express it prints out large format with incredible excellence.

Quark always did. You’re smart. I just can’t figure out how Aldus produced a PM that prints fine from Windows,
sells it to Adobe, and while Adobe can print from Photoshop, it can’t from PM. Since they own both codes, it seems like they should be able to port the Photoshop code to Adobe or at least be able to link correctly to a tiff file for printing. And on top of that they have Acrobat which allows this kind of printing but which they want $300, and won’t give any discount to owner’s with version 3 or before.

Well, that’s my case. I leave it to the mercy of the court and the wisdom of the jury.

ah, right. sorry.
i don’t know about your specific printer, but my InDesign printer prints fine to both of my non-poscript printers, one of which is an old epson "proofer" and one is a samsung which doubles as my fax. what errors are you getting when you try to print?

I’m not say Photoshop is a new version of Pagemaker.
It just would be easier for me to lay out photos in PM,
but I can’t do that because they won’t print.

Actually, Adobe told me that InDesign wouldn’t
print to non-postscript printer either. Maybe I talked
to the wrong person. I have an Epson 3000, large format
printer that I can’t use with the Windows version of PM.

"Ruth" wrote in message

ah, right. sorry.
i don’t know about your specific printer, but my InDesign printer prints fine to both of my non-poscript printers, one of which is an old epson "proofer" and one is a samsung which doubles as my fax. what errors are you getting when you try to print?

I’m not say Photoshop is a new version of Pagemaker.
It just would be easier for me to lay out photos in PM,
but I can’t do that because they won’t print.

Actually, Adobe told me that InDesign wouldn’t
print to non-postscript printer either. Maybe I talked
to the wrong person. I have an Epson 3000, large format
printer that I can’t use with the Windows version of PM.

No errors, PM substitutes the screen version of the
file instead of the original, so I get low resolution.
Kind of hard to believe, huh.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC), "Ruth" wrote:

i used pagemaker on windows for a long time.
it kinda worked fine, if you don’t actually want to do anything creative. and if you don’t mind all the bugs.
and if you don’t mind the c**p pdf output.
and if you don’t mind the fact that nobody uses pagemaker and its just about impossible to get anything to a service bureau.
theres enough pooh-pooing about indesign around, which is a zillion times better than pagemaker.

I used Pagemaker for a while till Eric pointed out what a difference I’d find it I tried InDesign. i tried it. And then wondered why I’d been wasting my time all these years. Then I wondered why Adobe had been wasting my time all these years 😉

my personal opinion?

buy some better software. you’ll get all the money back in the time you’re spending trying to do things in pagemaker which take seconds to do in other apps.

its a bit far fetched to say, but to me pagemaker is just like a glorified microsoft word for print design.

of course i will reiterate that this is all my personal opinion, and i’m far from professional 🙂 so take it or leave it.

So now, I use ID and Acrobat – for different things, of course, but they’re my two main document output apps. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

ok. stupid question, not trying to be patronising, but when you placed the files into PM did you link them or place a full copy? and if you linked it are all the original ones still there? and is PM able to find them? the Link dialogue box will tell you if theres any that can’t be found, I think the shortcut is
Ctrl Shift D

you’ll see if there are any pics that can’t be found.

of course if you’ve already done this i’ll start slinging mud at PM again.

No errors, PM substitutes the screen version of the
file instead of the original, so I get low resolution.
Kind of hard to believe, huh.

"Ruth" wrote in message

ok. stupid question, not trying to be patronising, but when you placed the files into PM did you link them or place a full copy? and if you linked it are all the original ones still there? and is PM able to find them? the Link dialogue box will tell you if theres any that can’t be found, I think the shortcut is
Ctrl Shift D

you’ll see if there are any pics that can’t be found.

of course if you’ve already done this i’ll start slinging mud at PM again.

No errors, PM substitutes the screen version of the
file instead of the original, so I get low resolution.
Kind of hard to believe, huh.

Yeah, I tried it all, and retried it with PM tech support on the line. They admitted that there was a problem but
it still doesn’t make sense to me.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 17:11:52 +0000 (UTC), "Ruth" wrote:

i used pagemaker on windows for a long time.
it kinda worked fine, if you don’t actually want to do anything creative. and if you don’t mind all the bugs.
and if you don’t mind the c**p pdf output.
and if you don’t mind the fact that nobody uses pagemaker and its just

about

impossible to get anything to a service bureau.
theres enough pooh-pooing about indesign around, which is a zillion times better than pagemaker.

I used Pagemaker for a while till Eric pointed out what a difference I’d find it I tried InDesign. i tried it. And then wondered why I’d been wasting my time all these years. Then I wondered why Adobe had been wasting my time all these years 😉

my personal opinion?

buy some better software. you’ll get all the money back in the time

you’re

spending trying to do things in pagemaker which take seconds to do in

other

apps.

its a bit far fetched to say, but to me pagemaker is just like a

glorified

microsoft word for print design.

of course i will reiterate that this is all my personal opinion, and i’m

far

from professional 🙂 so take it or leave it.

So now, I use ID and Acrobat – for different things, of course, but they’re my two main document output apps. 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

What are the advantages of InDesign? Does it
beat Quark, in your opinion? Why did you use
PM when Quark was available?

have you tried importing each separate picture to a file and printing it? you might be able to identify a problematic one.

ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

"Ruth" wrote in message

ok. stupid question, not trying to be patronising, but when you placed

the

files into PM did you link them or place a full copy? and if you linked

it

are all the original ones still there? and is PM able to find them? the Link dialogue box will tell you if theres any that can’t be found, I think the shortcut is
Ctrl Shift D

you’ll see if there are any pics that can’t be found.

of course if you’ve already done this i’ll start slinging mud at PM

again.

No errors, PM substitutes the screen version of the
file instead of the original, so I get low resolution.
Kind of hard to believe, huh.

Yeah, I tried it all, and retried it with PM tech support on the line. They admitted that there was a problem but
it still doesn’t make sense to me.

"Ruth" wrote in message

have you tried importing each separate picture to a file and printing it? you might be able to identify a problematic one.

I’m not sure if I understand this. I have placed a file through the clipboard, which didn’t work. I also placed a file through the place command under the file menu and checked and
double checked the link. I didn’t mention this but I’m a graphic designer and doing this kind of thing was my livelihood for a few years.

This seems to be as hard for you guys to believe as it was for me. When and if I have the time I’m going to call Adobe again and get an official explanation of the problem and maybe post a link to their explanation, on the Adobe website, if it exists.

sorry i wasn’t clear.
what i meant was, place each image separately onto a nice, new clean file. one by one,
printing them out as you go along.
you might find that it is just one image giving you grief. honestly i’m not trying to be patronising but PM *is* buggier than most programs.

perhaps adobe are hoping that pagemaker will go quietly. 🙂

good luck
ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

"Ruth" wrote in message

have you tried importing each separate picture to a file and printing

it?

you might be able to identify a problematic one.

I’m not sure if I understand this. I have placed a file through the clipboard, which didn’t work. I also placed a file through the place command under the file menu and checked and
double checked the link. I didn’t mention this but I’m a graphic designer and doing this kind of thing was my livelihood for a few years.

This seems to be as hard for you guys to believe as it was for me. When and if I have the time I’m going to call Adobe again and get an official explanation of the problem and maybe post a link to their explanation, on the Adobe website, if it exists.

Ruth,
Thanks for you continued effort. I wasn’t clear
either. Some of the pictures were posters that
should have printed out at a little less than
17 x 22. They were the only pics on the page.

When did PM get to be buggy. The big knock
when I was involved was the lack of type control.
Not being able to do track kerning.

Oh. well.

"Ruth" wrote in message

sorry i wasn’t clear.
what i meant was, place each image separately onto a nice, new clean file. one by one,
printing them out as you go along.
you might find that it is just one image giving you grief. honestly i’m not trying to be patronising but PM *is* buggier than most programs.

perhaps adobe are hoping that pagemaker will go quietly. 🙂

good luck
ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

"Ruth" wrote in message

have you tried importing each separate picture to a file and printing

it?

you might be able to identify a problematic one.

I’m not sure if I understand this. I have placed a file through the clipboard, which didn’t work. I also placed a file through the place command under the file menu and checked and
double checked the link. I didn’t mention this but I’m a graphic designer and doing this kind of thing was my livelihood for a few years.

This seems to be as hard for you guys to believe as it was for me. When and if I have the time I’m going to call Adobe again and get an official explanation of the problem and maybe post a link to their explanation, on the Adobe website, if it exists.

On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 11:01:39 -0800, "Not so quick" wrote:

What are the advantages of InDesign? Does it
beat Quark, in your opinion? Why did you use
PM when Quark was available?

Advantages of InDesign, IMHO, of course, are that it’s a far better program, isn’t buggy, does what you want it to do instead of what it wants to do, is much easier to use and, despite my anger with Adobe re. activation, the technical support people at least have some clue about how their program works, which is more than you can say for Quark. (Don’t know how prevalent this is, but when I was working in support, trying to get a Quark problem sported, one of the people using it came up with the solution when the Quark people hadn’t any idea how to fix the particular problem and when told how it was fixed said, and I quote, "But you can’t do that" <g>). I think there are some things Quark can do still, with the right incantations and if there’s an r in the month, that ID can’t, but I would doubt that most general usage cannot be done better, and more easily in ID.

I used PM because that’s what they had to use, and because I talked to the people using Quark and decided:

1. For my purposes, which where simple documents, PM was enough and,
2. If I used Quark it wouldn’t be long before I ordered an Air Strike
on their company HQ 😉

Even the people who knew that, at the time, they had no choice but to use Quark, hated it. And one of the major reasons was that it was buggy, tech support was worse than useless, and the company didn’t give a damn because they knew there was no where else to go. With ID that’s changed, and if Quark dies a timely death, well it couldn’;t happen to a nicer company 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

pleasure. shame none of it is useful 🙂

ah, ok.
so let me get this straight.
is there one file with a bunch of pages and some of them have one image placed on the page and some have more than one?

or separate files, some with only one placed image?

ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

Ruth,
Thanks for you continued effort. I wasn’t clear
either. Some of the pictures were posters that
should have printed out at a little less than
17 x 22. They were the only pics on the page.

When did PM get to be buggy. The big knock
when I was involved was the lack of type control.
Not being able to do track kerning.

Oh. well.

"Ruth" wrote in message

sorry i wasn’t clear.
what i meant was, place each image separately onto a nice, new clean

file.

one by one,
printing them out as you go along.
you might find that it is just one image giving you grief. honestly i’m not trying to be patronising but PM *is* buggier than most programs.

perhaps adobe are hoping that pagemaker will go quietly. 🙂

good luck
ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

"Ruth" wrote in message

have you tried importing each separate picture to a file and

printing

it?

you might be able to identify a problematic one.

I’m not sure if I understand this. I have placed a file through the clipboard, which didn’t work. I also placed a file through the place command under the file menu and checked and
double checked the link. I didn’t mention this but I’m a graphic designer and doing this kind of thing was my livelihood for a few years.

This seems to be as hard for you guys to believe as it was for me. When and if I have the time I’m going to call Adobe again and get an official explanation of the problem and maybe post a link to their explanation, on the Adobe website, if it exists.

"Ruth" wrote in message

pleasure. shame none of it is useful 🙂

ah, ok.
so let me get this straight.
is there one file with a bunch of pages and some of them have one image placed on the page and some have more than one?

or separate files, some with only one placed image?

ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

Ruth,
Thanks for you continued effort. I wasn’t clear
either. Some of the pictures were posters that
should have printed out at a little less than
17 x 22. They were the only pics on the page.

When did PM get to be buggy. The big knock
when I was involved was the lack of type control.
Not being able to do track kerning.

Oh. well.

"Ruth" wrote in message

sorry i wasn’t clear.
what i meant was, place each image separately onto a nice, new clean

file.

one by one,
printing them out as you go along.
you might find that it is just one image giving you grief. honestly i’m not trying to be patronising but PM *is* buggier than

most

programs.

perhaps adobe are hoping that pagemaker will go quietly. 🙂

good luck
ruth

"Not so quick" wrote in message

"Ruth" wrote in message

have you tried importing each separate picture to a file and

printing

it?

you might be able to identify a problematic one.

I’m not sure if I understand this. I have placed a file through the clipboard, which didn’t work. I also placed a file through the place command under the file menu and checked and
double checked the link. I didn’t mention this but I’m a graphic designer and doing this kind of thing was my livelihood for a few years.

This seems to be as hard for you guys to believe as it was for me. When and if I have the time I’m going to call Adobe again and get an official explanation of the problem and maybe post a link to their explanation, on the Adobe website, if it exists.

The last thing I tried was a single picture placed
on one page alone in Pagemaker, that was linked
correctly, I’m very sure.

Before than I was trying to print a collage of 3×5
pics arranged on a 17×22 page, sort of a family
collage. It worked fine but wasn’t as easy, in Photoshop.

Thanks for trying but I’m about out of steam for this
subject.

: -)

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:mmasb.28091$:

What are the advantages of InDesign?

They are too numerous to easily list.

A good way to sum it up is that I know of no feature that Quark has that is not better, in terms of reliability, ease of use and number of options giving greater control in InDesign.

(There IS one exception to that – because Adobe broke a feature I need in the CS update.)

And then there is a lengthy list of features that Xpress lacks altogether, which Quark, Inc. seems not very interested in implementing since they have nothing to do with the web. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why, since these are allegedly packages designed for laying out printed pages, but then it’s ofetn hard to fathom what Quark, Inc. is thinking…if "thinking" is the correct term.

If you are wondering why I’m talking about Quark instead of Pagemaker, it’s because PageMaker isn’t even a distant third in this comparison.

Does it beat Quark, in your opinion?

Quark has given up trying to compete features-wise, IMHO. Now they are attempting a Microsoft, that is, using their market share, backroom deals, and PR instead of offering value to their customers.

Why did you use PM when Quark was available?

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

Come on, don’t hold back, say what you *really* think 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

Come on, don’t hold back, say what you *really* think 😉

<snort> I’m surprised I haven’t been hit by a libel suit already.

Not because I’m lying, mind you. Just to try to intimidate me into shutting up.

His attitude pervades the entire company, and it’s worse with Tim Gill retired.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:mmasb.28091$:

What are the advantages of InDesign?

They are too numerous to easily list.

A good way to sum it up is that I know of no feature that Quark has that is not better, in terms of reliability, ease of use and number of options giving greater control in InDesign.

(There IS one exception to that – because Adobe broke a feature I need in the CS update.)

And then there is a lengthy list of features that Xpress lacks altogether, which Quark, Inc. seems not very interested in implementing since they have nothing to do with the web. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why, since these are allegedly packages designed for laying out printed pages, but then it’s ofetn hard to fathom what Quark, Inc. is thinking…if "thinking" is the correct term.

If you are wondering why I’m talking about Quark instead of Pagemaker, it’s because PageMaker isn’t even a distant third in this comparison.

Does it beat Quark, in your opinion?

Quark has given up trying to compete features-wise, IMHO. Now they are attempting a Microsoft, that is, using their market share, backroom deals, and PR instead of offering value to their customers.

Why did you use PM when Quark was available?

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

I wonder why Adobe doesn’t give any upgrade
path from PM to InDesign. Or does it?

My problem still exists though. Apparently InDesign
doesn’t print tiff to non-postscript printers. I better
check that out, although I have called once.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:mmasb.28091$:

What are the advantages of InDesign?

They are too numerous to easily list.

A good way to sum it up is that I know of no feature that Quark has that is not better, in terms of reliability, ease of use and number of options giving greater control in InDesign.

(There IS one exception to that – because Adobe broke a feature I need in the CS update.)

And then there is a lengthy list of features that Xpress lacks altogether, which Quark, Inc. seems not very interested in implementing since they have nothing to do with the web. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why, since these are allegedly packages designed for laying out printed pages, but then it’s ofetn hard to fathom what Quark, Inc. is thinking…if "thinking" is the correct term.

If you are wondering why I’m talking about Quark instead of Pagemaker, it’s because PageMaker isn’t even a distant third in this comparison.

Does it beat Quark, in your opinion?

Quark has given up trying to compete features-wise, IMHO. Now they are attempting a Microsoft, that is, using their market share, backroom deals, and PR instead of offering value to their customers.

Why did you use PM when Quark was available?

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

I have another problem with Adobe. One of my favorite companies sold out to Adobe. Syntrillium, who made CoolEdit, one of the most popular shareware programs ever marketed. It’s an audio editing program. The first thing Adobe did was to drop the affordable lower end audio editor and a very nice screensaver type program called "windchimes".

oh, it warms my heart to hear that.
<having to put up with "anyone who doesn’t use Quark can’t possibly design anything pretty :)" for a number of years. its not a moral stand, in reality. just a financial one.>

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:IvEsb.354$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:mmasb.28091$:

What are the advantages of InDesign?

They are too numerous to easily list.

A good way to sum it up is that I know of no feature that Quark has that is not better, in terms of reliability, ease of use and number of options giving greater control in InDesign.

(There IS one exception to that – because Adobe broke a feature I need in the CS update.)

And then there is a lengthy list of features that Xpress lacks altogether, which Quark, Inc. seems not very interested in implementing since they have nothing to do with the web. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why, since these are allegedly packages designed for laying out printed pages, but then it’s ofetn hard to fathom what Quark, Inc. is thinking…if "thinking" is the correct term.
If you are wondering why I’m talking about Quark instead of Pagemaker, it’s because PageMaker isn’t even a distant third in this comparison.

Does it beat Quark, in your opinion?

Quark has given up trying to compete features-wise, IMHO. Now they are attempting a Microsoft, that is, using their market share, backroom deals, and PR instead of offering value to their customers.

Why did you use PM when Quark was available?

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

I wonder why Adobe doesn’t give any upgrade
path from PM to InDesign. Or does it?

My problem still exists though. Apparently InDesign
doesn’t print tiff to non-postscript printers.

Tiff has nothing to do with the PS spec. I’m not sure where you got this idea, but it is mistaken. Some packages cannot print anything but the screen preview of postscript artwork to non-PS printers. Tiff is not PS.

The fact is, InDesign will print any artwork – including Postscript – to non-PS printers, because it has the Acrobat engine built into it.

I better
check that out, although I have called once.

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

Their "tech support" is the industry leader in arrogant, unhelpful, almost beligerant blame denial.

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn? And, from your experience, do most printers have it?

I would ask, do most service bureas have it, but last couple of years, seems like almost all the hi quality printers here, have taken the complete pre-press thing in house. They’re all direct to plate now. Theres no film at all.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:32:12 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

His attitude pervades the entire company, and it’s worse with Tim Gill retired.

……… any relation?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:42:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

The fact is, InDesign will print any artwork – including Postscript – to non-PS printers, because it has the Acrobat engine built into it.

wow. you are kidding??? That means i could ditch this horrible buggy Epson Stylus Postscript RIP?

that would be,,,,, unbelievably beneficial.

Their "tech support" is the industry leader in arrogant, unhelpful, almost beligerant blame denial.

he he he he he

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn? And, from your experience, do most printers have it?

i think that if you are familiar with other adobe products indesign would not be at all difficult to learn.

i output pdfs for everything these days, I don’t think the original application matters anymore.
only one printing company that I deal with asks for the source file, and I know this before I start and use an application that I know they can deal with.

i don’t have to worry about the mac/pc thing anymore.

I would ask, do most service bureas have it, but last couple of years, seems like almost all the hi quality printers here, have taken the complete pre-press thing in house. They’re all direct to plate now. Theres no film at all.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 03:32:12 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

His attitude pervades the entire company, and it’s worse with Tim Gill retired.

…….. any relation?

Nope. This is an internet nick I took from the virtuoso type designer, artist and religious nut from earlier this century.

Whether Tim is related to Eric I have no idea.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:42:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

The fact is, InDesign will print any artwork – including Postscript – to non-PS printers, because it has the Acrobat engine built into it.

wow. you are kidding??? That means i could ditch this horrible buggy Epson Stylus Postscript RIP?

Been there, done that (Epson 3000). Even with Quark, you can distill, then print straight from Acrobat Reader.

Coincidentally, InDesign also uses that PDF engine to render your artwork to the screen, so no more nasty-looking previews from Illustrator.

that would be,,,,, unbelievably beneficial.

You’re more right than you’ll know until you try it.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

Their "tech support" is the industry leader in arrogant, unhelpful, almost beligerant blame denial.

Yep. I lost count of how many times my accounts were deleted from their tech forums – back when they actually had any – for being a client that needed answers instead of a Quark cheerleader.

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn?

If you know Quark, not very. For example, you can re-define any keyboard shortcut and save them as sets, and a Quark compatible set is shipped with Indy to make QXP users transition easier.

Aside from that, it’s mostly a process of learning the extra features and options of Indy, and a few differences in the way it handles things.

And, from your
experience, do most printers have it?

Very few have it, though that’s changing slowly.

However, I *do not* submit native files anymore. Acrobat solves the problem, including cross-platform type, quite nicely.

I would ask, do most service bureas have it, but last couple of years, seems like almost all the hi quality printers here, have taken the complete pre-press thing in house. They’re all direct to plate now. Theres no film at all.

Yep. I’ve only got one client that uses a bureau to make film anymore; a printing company so small they use the better of their two 2-color presses for 4/C jobs. Mostly, I use them for business cards and the like for other clients.

However, the bureau gets acrobat files and likes it.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:32:56 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

wow. you are kidding??? That means i could ditch this horrible buggy Epson Stylus Postscript RIP?

Been there, done that (Epson 3000). Even with Quark, you can distill, then print straight from Acrobat Reader.

uh, i am not sure that will do me any good, because i have to use the Epson Postscript RIP as the basis for me to rip my PS files…. unless you can show me how to use another "virtual software postscript RIP" to rip the quark files into PS…

then after that, i create a hi rez pdf, using Distiller and the procedure you pointed me to earlier, and print from Reader?

this could be….. the best thing since sliced bread.

how "accurate" is the color from this kind of printing?

Coincidentally, InDesign also uses that PDF engine to render your artwork to the screen, so no more nasty-looking previews from Illustrator.

LOL! they are so nasty, that often, Quark blows its own mind after i import an EPS from illustrator. the print pull down menus in Quark just have ugly pixel noise in them, or only show one choice, over and over. I have to restart the machine. Piece of sh*t.

that would be,,,,, unbelievably beneficial.

You’re more right than you’ll know until you try it.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:41:01 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn?

If you know Quark, not very. For example, you can re-define any keyboard shortcut and save them as sets, and a Quark compatible set is shipped with Indy to make QXP users transition easier.

hmmm. the plot thickens. Might be time to pony up to this bundle that gives me new versions of photoshop, illustrator, and indesign.

so, do you use Quark anymore at all?

However, I *do not* submit native files anymore. Acrobat solves the problem, including cross-platform type, quite nicely.

if i was to do that, i suppose i’d have to buy the latest version of Acrobat as well.

i went to a "color calibration" seminar yesterday, and the only thing i learned, was, all my equipment and software is terribly outdated.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:IvEsb.354$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:mmasb.28091$:

What are the advantages of InDesign?

They are too numerous to easily list.

A good way to sum it up is that I know of no feature that Quark has that is not better, in terms of reliability, ease of use and number of options giving greater control in InDesign.

(There IS one exception to that – because Adobe broke a feature I need in the CS update.)

And then there is a lengthy list of features that Xpress lacks altogether, which Quark, Inc. seems not very interested in implementing since they have nothing to do with the web. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why, since these are allegedly packages designed for laying out printed pages, but then it’s ofetn hard to fathom what Quark, Inc. is thinking…if "thinking" is the correct term.
If you are wondering why I’m talking about Quark instead of Pagemaker, it’s because PageMaker isn’t even a distant third in this comparison.

Does it beat Quark, in your opinion?

Quark has given up trying to compete features-wise, IMHO. Now they are attempting a Microsoft, that is, using their market share, backroom deals, and PR instead of offering value to their customers.

Why did you use PM when Quark was available?

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

I wonder why Adobe doesn’t give any upgrade
path from PM to InDesign. Or does it?

My problem still exists though. Apparently InDesign
doesn’t print tiff to non-postscript printers.

Tiff has nothing to do with the PS spec. I’m not sure where you got this idea, but it is mistaken. Some packages cannot print anything but the screen preview of postscript artwork to non-PS printers. Tiff is not PS.
The fact is, InDesign will print any artwork – including Postscript – to non-PS printers, because it has the Acrobat engine built into it.

I better
check that out, although I have called once.

I got the idea from Adobe tech support, but it was
in the first days of InDesign and maybe the Adobe
engine wasn’t included then or tech wasn’t aware,
or maybe they were tired of my bitching.

But you bring up the critical point. Why isn’t the
acrobat engine included in PageMaker also?
Were you around when Aldus tried to sell "Preprint" separately from Pagemaker thereby increasing the
price by a couple of hundred dollars? Seems like
the same thing.

And why did my very old version of Mac PM print
fine to the Epson 3000 and the PC version doesn’t.

I realize that tiff is not different than bmp or any other commonly used bitmap mode. I just preferred it because
it was easier to import into Freehand when I was using
it and I wanted to have some sort of standardization.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:32:56 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

wow. you are kidding??? That means i could ditch this horrible buggy Epson Stylus Postscript RIP?

Been there, done that (Epson 3000). Even with Quark, you can distill, then print straight from Acrobat Reader.

uh, i am not sure that will do me any good, because i have to use the Epson Postscript RIP as the basis for me to rip my PS files…. unless you can show me how to use another "virtual software postscript RIP" to rip the quark files into PS…

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.

No RIP needed. Acrobat does that.

then after that, i create a hi rez pdf, using Distiller and the procedure you pointed me to earlier, and print from Reader?

Right.

this could be….. the best thing since sliced bread.

how "accurate" is the color from this kind of printing?

Reasonable. If you’re looking for prepress proofing, it’s as good as any other solution that isn’t made especially for that purpose.

Coincidentally, InDesign also uses that PDF engine to render your artwork to the screen, so no more nasty-looking previews from Illustrator.

LOL! they are so nasty, that often, Quark blows its own mind after i import an EPS from illustrator. the print pull down menus in Quark just have ugly pixel noise in them, or only show one choice, over and over. I have to restart the machine. Piece of sh*t.

Hmmm – are you making sure you’ve only got level 1 Postscript in your Illy files?

Anybody heard a reasonable rationale why
Adobe doesn’t have an upgrade path for
Acrobat 3?

"howldog" wrote in message

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:41:01 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn?

If you know Quark, not very. For example, you can re-define any keyboard shortcut and save them as sets, and a Quark compatible set is shipped

with

Indy to make QXP users transition easier.

hmmm. the plot thickens. Might be time to pony up to this bundle that gives me new versions of photoshop, illustrator, and indesign.
so, do you use Quark anymore at all?

However, I *do not* submit native files anymore. Acrobat solves the problem, including cross-platform type, quite nicely.

if i was to do that, i suppose i’d have to buy the latest version of Acrobat as well.

i went to a "color calibration" seminar yesterday, and the only thing i learned, was, all my equipment and software is terribly outdated.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:41:01 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn?

If you know Quark, not very. For example, you can re-define any keyboard shortcut and save them as sets, and a Quark compatible set is shipped with Indy to make QXP users transition easier.

hmmm. the plot thickens. Might be time to pony up to this bundle that gives me new versions of photoshop, illustrator, and indesign.
so, do you use Quark anymore at all?

At the moment, sure. I mentioned the feature they broke in IndyCS – that feature is scaling text in groups. I WILL NOT work without it.

So right now I’m using Indy 2.02 for sophisticated layouts in single page stuff (ads and the like) and QXP for publications (which need better speed than Indy 2). I was going to ditch QXP for the publications right up to the point I found the glitch, which they seem to know about. It’s a damn shame, because otherwise IndyCS is just about everything you could hope for in a page layout package.

However, I *do not* submit native files anymore. Acrobat solves the problem, including cross-platform type, quite nicely.

if i was to do that, i suppose i’d have to buy the latest version of Acrobat as well.

Nah. Version 6 has some excellent features for prepress, but 5.05 just works.

i went to a "color calibration" seminar yesterday, and the only thing i learned, was, all my equipment and software is terribly outdated.

Right. Color calibration works only to a certain point anyways – after that it’s the eye of the artist that makes the difference.

"Not so quick" wrote in news:HZPsb.437$Ue4.15 @fed1read01:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:IvEsb.354$:

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

"Not so quick" wrote in
news:mmasb.28091$:

What are the advantages of InDesign?

They are too numerous to easily list.

A good way to sum it up is that I know of no feature that Quark has that is not better, in terms of reliability, ease of use and number of options giving greater control in InDesign.

(There IS one exception to that – because Adobe broke a feature I need in the CS update.)

And then there is a lengthy list of features that Xpress lacks altogether, which Quark, Inc. seems not very interested in implementing since they have nothing to do with the web. Of course, it’s hard to imagine why, since these are allegedly packages designed for laying out printed pages, but then it’s ofetn hard to fathom what Quark, Inc. is thinking…if "thinking" is the correct term.
If you are wondering why I’m talking about Quark instead of Pagemaker, it’s because PageMaker isn’t even a distant third in this comparison.

Does it beat Quark, in your opinion?

Quark has given up trying to compete features-wise, IMHO. Now they are attempting a Microsoft, that is, using their market share, backroom deals, and PR instead of offering value to their customers.

Why did you use PM when Quark was available?

I’d never tried Quark.

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

I wonder why Adobe doesn’t give any upgrade
path from PM to InDesign. Or does it?

My problem still exists though. Apparently InDesign
doesn’t print tiff to non-postscript printers.

Tiff has nothing to do with the PS spec. I’m not sure where you got this idea, but it is mistaken. Some packages cannot print anything but the screen preview of postscript artwork to non-PS printers. Tiff is not PS.
The fact is, InDesign will print any artwork – including Postscript – to non-PS printers, because it has the Acrobat engine built into it.

I better
check that out, although I have called once.

I got the idea from Adobe tech support, but it was
in the first days of InDesign and maybe the Adobe
engine wasn’t included then or tech wasn’t aware,
or maybe they were tired of my bitching.

No, it’s been there from day one. I’d take option 2. Even though Adobe is worlds better than Quark, I’ve never seen a help desk that is perfect all the time.

But you bring up the critical point. Why isn’t the
acrobat engine included in PageMaker also?

Pagemaker predates Acrobat by many years, and Adobe apparently didn’t see any reason to keep trying to hack the outdated code instead of starting from scratch. I’m very glad they did.

Were you around when Aldus tried to sell "Preprint" separately from Pagemaker thereby increasing the
price by a couple of hundred dollars? Seems like
the same thing.

Preprint was a tool useful mainly to prepress houses, and such software tends to be seperate and pricey, especially, what – ten years ago?

And why did my very old version of Mac PM print
fine to the Epson 3000 and the PC version doesn’t.

Pagemaker sucks.

I realize that tiff is not different than bmp or any other commonly used bitmap mode.

Sure it is. For one thing, BMP doesn’t store print dimensions or resolution, and isn’t suitable for professional work.

I just preferred it because
it was easier to import into Freehand when I was using
it and I wanted to have some sort of standardization.

I use it for any pic going to press that doesn’t need a clipping path. The newer versions even preserve Photoshop layers yet maintain backward compatibility – a very handy thing.

In fact, Tiff has been the standard workaround for years in getting artwork to print in a non-PS environment. Either you misunderstood them, or you got some serious idiots in support.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

uh, i am not sure that will do me any good, because i have to use the Epson Postscript RIP as the basis for me to rip my PS files…. unless you can show me how to use another "virtual software postscript RIP" to rip the quark files into PS…

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.

thats good news, i hoped thats what you would say. I noticed the webpage screenshots used an AGVA driver. Which one do you use, and where could i get such a thing?

this could be….. the best thing since sliced bread.

how "accurate" is the color from this kind of printing?

Reasonable. If you’re looking for prepress proofing, it’s as good as any other solution that isn’t made especially for that purpose.

it cant be any worse than the Epson Stylus RIP. That thing has the most useless color profile i’ve ever seen. Create a square of 100% yellow in quark, print using the stylus RIP, square prints with dots of blue and black. Heh.
anyway, thats what i’ve been dealing with for years.

Hmmm – are you making sure you’ve only got level 1 Postscript in your Illy files?

i dont see anywhere in Illustrator where i can even choose…. i’m running illustrator 7, sadly……. where would i find that? Under the printer setup?

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:30:32 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

However, I *do not* submit native files anymore. Acrobat solves the problem, including cross-platform type, quite nicely.

if i was to do that, i suppose i’d have to buy the latest version of Acrobat as well.

Nah. Version 6 has some excellent features for prepress, but 5.05 just works.

Heh. I have 3.

thats right, 3.

i went to a "color calibration" seminar yesterday, and the only thing i learned, was, all my equipment and software is terribly outdated.

Right. Color calibration works only to a certain point anyways – after that it’s the eye of the artist that makes the difference.

all they did basically was tell me i have to buy all this expensive third party software, and then of course, they will show me how to calibrate my monitor and inkjet, to THEIR RIP AND PRESS. Glorified Sales pitch.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

uh, i am not sure that will do me any good, because i have to use the Epson Postscript RIP as the basis for me to rip my PS files…. unless you can show me how to use another "virtual software postscript RIP" to rip the quark files into PS…

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.

thats good news, i hoped thats what you would say. I noticed the webpage screenshots used an AGVA driver. Which one do you use

The newest version of the Avantra-44 on the Win2K Pro disks.

That particular beast is about as flexible an imagesetter as will ever be made, I think.

, and where could i get such a thing?

The Agfa website, if it’s not on your Win installer (Control Panel-> Printers->Add Printer), I would preseume.

this could be….. the best thing since sliced bread.

how "accurate" is the color from this kind of printing?

Reasonable. If you’re looking for prepress proofing, it’s as good as any other solution that isn’t made especially for that purpose.

it cant be any worse than the Epson Stylus RIP. That thing has the most useless color profile i’ve ever seen. Create a square of 100% yellow in quark, print using the stylus RIP, square prints with dots of blue and black. Heh.
anyway, thats what i’ve been dealing with for years.

Like I said, been there. What Espon do you have?

Hmmm – are you making sure you’ve only got level 1 Postscript in your Illy files?

i dont see anywhere in Illustrator where i can even choose…. i’m running illustrator 7, sadly……. where would i find that? Under the printer setup?

When you save as an EPS. Second page of options. Postscript (dropdown) Level 1.

You may have to save in an older format (Illustrator 5.5) to get the option for level 1. If that is not acceptable, level 2 may do the job.

Level 3 crashes my copies of Quark 4.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:30:32 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

However, I *do not* submit native files anymore. Acrobat solves the problem, including cross-platform type, quite nicely.

if i was to do that, i suppose i’d have to buy the latest version of Acrobat as well.

Nah. Version 6 has some excellent features for prepress, but 5.05 just works.

Heh. I have 3.

thats right, 3.

Ouch. Caused me all kinds of problems that just went away with v.5.

That’s a very worthwhile upgrade, btw. Not too terribly pricey, either. A client found a valid license on eBay cheap.

i went to a "color calibration" seminar yesterday, and the only thing i learned, was, all my equipment and software is terribly outdated.

Right. Color calibration works only to a certain point anyways – after that it’s the eye of the artist that makes the difference.

all they did basically was tell me i have to buy all this expensive third party software, and then of course, they will show me how to calibrate my monitor and inkjet, to THEIR RIP AND PRESS. Glorified Sales pitch.

Yeah, usually.

I’ve given up on such things beyond using correct profiles and doing basic adjustments. Unless I get a contract for an art book, it’s just not worth the hassle.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:37:19 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

thats good news, i hoped thats what you would say. I noticed the webpage screenshots used an AGVA driver. Which one do you use

The newest version of the Avantra-44 on the Win2K Pro disks.
That particular beast is about as flexible an imagesetter as will ever be made, I think.

yeeehaw! It worked.

thanks.

so far, the prints look a little washed out. Its almost assuredly the non-postscript print driver of the Epson Color Stylus 1520, but it has controls andi be ti can find somethign close if i play around

anyway….. no Stylus color rip needed! awesome. now i can actually get away from Windows 98 and go up to XP or 2000.

i had to stay in 98 because Epsons Stylus color rip wouldnt work in XP…. so they told me over the phone.

Hmmm – are you making sure you’ve only got level 1 Postscript in your Illy files?

i dont see anywhere in Illustrator where i can even choose…. i’m running illustrator 7, sadly……. where would i find that? Under the printer setup?

When you save as an EPS. Second page of options. Postscript (dropdown) Level 1.

in my old version of Illustrator (7), i dont get a second page of options when saving as EPS, or, saving down to 5.5, or, any kind of combination

oh well

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:43:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Nah. Version 6 has some excellent features for prepress, but 5.05 just works.

Heh. I have 3.

thats right, 3.

Ouch. Caused me all kinds of problems that just went away with v.5.
That’s a very worthwhile upgrade, btw. Not too terribly pricey, either. A client found a valid license on eBay cheap.

will look into that later.

i have 5 Reader……. is that all i need?

the acrobat 3 distiller seems to be working for me… doesnt crash….. then agian i’m on windows 98… for now

i went to a "color calibration" seminar yesterday, and the only thing i learned, was, all my equipment and software is terribly outdated.

Right. Color calibration works only to a certain point anyways – after that it’s the eye of the artist that makes the difference.

all they did basically was tell me i have to buy all this expensive third party software, and then of course, they will show me how to calibrate my monitor and inkjet, to THEIR RIP AND PRESS. Glorified Sales pitch.

Yeah, usually.

I’ve given up on such things beyond using correct profiles and doing basic adjustments. Unless I get a contract for an art book, it’s just not worth the hassle.

in article , howldog at
wrote on 11/13/03 1:41 PM:

i had to stay in 98 because Epsons Stylus color rip wouldnt work in XP…. so they told me over the phone.

So call them back and tell them what is really going on.

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:37:19 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

thats good news, i hoped thats what you would say. I noticed the webpage screenshots used an AGVA driver. Which one do you use

The newest version of the Avantra-44 on the Win2K Pro disks.
That particular beast is about as flexible an imagesetter as will ever be made, I think.

yeeehaw! It worked.

thanks.

You bet.

so far, the prints look a little washed out. Its almost assuredly the non-postscript print driver of the Epson Color Stylus 1520, but it has controls andi be ti can find somethign close if i play around
anyway….. no Stylus color rip needed! awesome. now i can actually get away from Windows 98 and go up to XP or 2000.

Well, that’s something to rejoice about. More memory, better use of it, and no more "Out of System Resources."

i had to stay in 98 because Epsons Stylus color rip wouldnt work in XP…. so they told me over the phone.

Screw ’em.

Hmmm – are you making sure you’ve only got level 1 Postscript in your Illy files?

i dont see anywhere in Illustrator where i can even choose…. i’m running illustrator 7, sadly……. where would i find that? Under the printer setup?

When you save as an EPS. Second page of options. Postscript (dropdown) Level 1.

in my old version of Illustrator (7), i dont get a second page of options when saving as EPS, or, saving down to 5.5, or, any kind of combination

If I’ve still got it, I’ll dig out 7 and see if I can find the option.

oh well

howldog wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:43:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Nah. Version 6 has some excellent features for prepress, but 5.05 just works.

Heh. I have 3.

thats right, 3.

Ouch. Caused me all kinds of problems that just went away with v.5.
That’s a very worthwhile upgrade, btw. Not too terribly pricey, either. A client found a valid license on eBay cheap.

will look into that later.

i have 5 Reader…

Which is good. Later versions of Acrobat files (not using the same version number as the product itself, just to cause confusion) load but give screwy results in 3.

…. is that all i need?

Distiller.

the acrobat 3 distiller seems to be working for me… doesnt crash….. then agian i’m on windows 98… for now

Gave me a mountain of problems – not crashing, but Postscript errors and not embedding fonts properly, pretty much defeating the purpose of Acrobat.

<snip>

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:02:32 -0800, Zippy wrote:

in article , howldog at
wrote on 11/13/03 1:41 PM:

i had to stay in 98 because Epsons Stylus color rip wouldnt work in XP…. so they told me over the phone.

So call them back and tell them what is really going on.

??????? I’m still in 98.

I may go to XP and then i’ll decide to try to use their postscript RIP….

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.
No RIP needed. Acrobat does that.

Let me get this straight. I can install *any* PS printer driver, regardless of whether or not I have the printer, make a PS file (by printing to file) and then give it to Acrobat?

If that’s true, then omigod!! 😉

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:38:56 -0500, howldog
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:38:58 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

However, Hecate is entirely correct about Quark, Inc. They are largely a team of wankers led by the King of Wankers.

Their "tech support" is the industry leader in arrogant, unhelpful, almost beligerant blame denial.

I see you’ve had contact with them as well 😉

I’ve never even seen InDesign. How hard is it to learn? And, from your experience, do most printers have it?

I downloaded the trial version after Eric recommended it. After 3 days I started saving my pennies to buy it. It’s very nice to use and has a consistent Adobe interface. I rarely use Pagemaker now and would not bother to upgrade it or do anything serious with it. (I only use it when I need to do something quickly that I haven’t yet learnt to do quickly in ID).

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.

No RIP needed. Acrobat does that.

Let me get this straight. I can install *any* PS printer driver, regardless of whether or not I have the printer, make a PS file (by printing to file) and then give it to Acrobat?

Well, yes.

If that’s true, then omigod!! 😉

Are you yanking me, here?

Have mercy, please. This has been a killer day and it won’t be over for another couple of hours.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 22:51:35 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

in my old version of Illustrator (7), i dont get a second page of options when saving as EPS, or, saving down to 5.5, or, any kind of combination

If I’ve still got it, I’ll dig out 7 and see if I can find the option.

that would be very helpful, thank you

i looked around in preferences too and i couldnt find anything, altho, i thought i remember seeing it….. somewhere……

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:05:09 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.
No RIP needed. Acrobat does that.

Let me get this straight. I can install *any* PS printer driver, regardless of whether or not I have the printer, make a PS file (by printing to file) and then give it to Acrobat?

If that’s true, then omigod!! 😉

shocking but hey, if I can do it, yeah, anybody can. It’s blown my mind too. This sort of changes a lot of things for me, the way i work and supply files to vendors…… for the better i hope. I sent my first hi rez pdf to a magazine a couple of days ago, and they havent complained yet so it must have been acceptable.

I got the agfa Avantra PS driver right off the cabs file of my Windows 98 SE CD. Works like a champ. Just chose default as "print to file".

so far, printing to my epson inkjet, yes it works, i can rip a hi rez pdf and open the pdf in Reader and print anything, quark pages that have placed .eps files, to a non-postscript Epson printer driver. Previously, that yielded obviously gnarly results.

BUT the color is a little washed out and i spent a few hours messing around with the drivers color settings…. no real improvement. The Stylus postscript RIP, that supposedly works only in Windoze 98, so far, yields more accurate color prints.

might go to dual boot system…… work in XP most of the time, then switch to 98 when i need a more accurate in-shop color proof.

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:05:44 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.

No RIP needed. Acrobat does that.

Let me get this straight. I can install *any* PS printer driver, regardless of whether or not I have the printer, make a PS file (by printing to file) and then give it to Acrobat?

Well, yes.

If that’s true, then omigod!! 😉

Are you yanking me, here?

Have mercy, please. This has been a killer day and it won’t be over for another couple of hours.

Sorry 😉 It’s just that I was sort of half not sure because postscript is something that, though I’ve obviously output to, has usually been output only to send to a bureau rather than to use myself for Acrobat output. Whilst I do have relevant knowledge in most of the areas we discuss, sometimes I find something stupid I’ve missed 😉 And it was late, and I was tired. Not meaning to wind you up, really 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:14:41 -0500, howldog
wrote:

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 01:05:09 +0000, Hecate wrote:

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:22:45 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

All you need is a postscript printer driver to make PS files that Acrobat can chew on. Almost any one will work. I recommend using one that goes to a high-end film machine only because they have more options.
No RIP needed. Acrobat does that.

Let me get this straight. I can install *any* PS printer driver, regardless of whether or not I have the printer, make a PS file (by printing to file) and then give it to Acrobat?

If that’s true, then omigod!! 😉

shocking but hey, if I can do it, yeah, anybody can. It’s blown my mind too. This sort of changes a lot of things for me, the way i work and supply files to vendors…… for the better i hope. I sent my first hi rez pdf to a magazine a couple of days ago, and they havent complained yet so it must have been acceptable.

I got the agfa Avantra PS driver right off the cabs file of my Windows 98 SE CD. Works like a champ. Just chose default as "print to file".
so far, printing to my epson inkjet, yes it works, i can rip a hi rez pdf and open the pdf in Reader and print anything, quark pages that have placed .eps files, to a non-postscript Epson printer driver. Previously, that yielded obviously gnarly results.

I’ll see if that driver is on my WinXP disks otherwise I’ll grab it from Agfa. That was an excellent suggestion by Eric. Glad to see it’s working nicely for you 🙂

—

Hecate

veni, vidi, relinqui