Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rice!uw-beaver!milton!gwangung
From: gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: PageMaker, Quark XPress, & Print Shops
Message-ID: <5189@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 17 Jul 90 20:22:25 GMT
References: <476@amanue.UUCP> <1990Jul17.171249.416@ezx.uucp>
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 28

In article <1990Jul17.171249.416@ezx.uucp> jim@ezx.uucp (Jim Littlefield) writes:
>In article <476@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes:
>>I don't yet have a desktop publishing program, but will probably get one in the
>>next few months.  Based on the reviews I've read so far, I'm inclined toward
>>Quark XPress, though it's a close call.
>>
>
>It all depends on what type of work you plan on doing. If you are
>looking for laserprinter quality output only then your choice of
>PageMaker and Superpaint are probably ok. However, if you plan on producing
>film from a photo-typesetter and/or considering working in color then I
>would recommend using Quark Xpress and either Illustrator 88 or Freehand
>as the ONLY way to go.
>
>As far as finding a typesetter who can handle Xpress, if they aren't
>able to provide output from PageMaker AND Xpress then I personally won't
>consider using them. Both products are good but IMHO Xpress provides
>better type control and much better color suuport then PageMaker.

	As far as I understand, the typesetters around here have both
Xpress and PageMaker.  Their beef is that XPress is far too flaky 
and unreliable on their machines (the Linotronics, etc.).  They like
the greater control of XPress, but they don't like the flakiness.

	Understand this is just what I hear from them; I have no
personal knowledge of this.  That's why I was interested in seeing
followups on seeing why this was so (and the replies so far haven't been
very helpful as to why......)....