Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!boulder!stan!number6!kucharsk
From: kucharsk@number6.Solbourne.COM (William Kucharski)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps
Subject: Re: PageMaker, Quark XPress, & Print Shops
Message-ID: <1990Jul18.010940.12883@Solbourne.COM>
Date: 18 Jul 90 01:09:40 GMT
References: <476@amanue.UUCP> <1990Jul17.171249.416@ezx.uucp> <5189@milton.u.washington.edu>
Sender: news@Solbourne.COM
Distribution: comp
Organization: Solbourne Computer, Inc., Longmont CO
Lines: 22

In article <5189@milton.u.washington.edu> gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
 >	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.

Actually, it's more like XPress exercises the Linotronics' flakiness.  The
Linotronic PostScript RIPs have some notorious bugs in them, and of course
when you have a program with more control it's more likely to use some
"obtuse" features which then exercise RIP bugs.

Don't get me wrong, though -- XPress is far from perfect.  In fact, it took
me all of three minutes of playing around with my wife's latest revision of
the program to find several nasty, annoying bugs (though it's not like
Pagemaker's any better in this respect).


--
===============================================================================
| Internet:   kucharsk@Solbourne.COM	      |	William Kucharski             |
| uucp:	...!{boulder,sun,uunet}!stan!kucharsk |	Solbourne Computer, Inc.      |
= The opinions above are mine alone and NOT those of Solbourne Computer, Inc. =