Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM!fiddler
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Amiga 3000 + Amax == Ii
Message-ID: <143631@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 11 Oct 90 18:26:07 GMT
References: <4911@crash.cts.com>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 69

In article <4911@crash.cts.com>, seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) writes:
> In-Reply-To: message from Sonny.Shrivastava@f555.n161.z1.FIDONET.ORG
>  
> I, and several other Amiga owners would take exception to that last statemen
> tof yours, which just proved that you knew next to nothing about the Amiga.

Calm down Sean...this isn't worth the adrenalin.

> YES, the Amiga is super at video and animation work.  

No question about that, certainly at the low to mid range (with a bit
more cash, into the middle-upper range a bit).

> It's also a good color DTP platform as well.  

Well...low/entry level, OK.  It has the potential, but it's a real pain
to get commercial-quality results out of it.

> Tell me, what machines were used to make the first
> completely DTPed magazine...not the Mac...C64s and Amigas.  

This is mostly because of where the different publishing groups were
coming from.  The C64 and Amiga mags that use/used their respective
platforms for production are/were very clearly enthusiast publications.
The quality of typography, layout, art, etc. were by no means up to
glossy publication standards.  This isn't to sneer, either, but they
were not up to mass-market standards.

> I'm sure that
> several magazines use Macs in the production of their magazines, but the Amiga
> is used by several for every aspect of the publication process.  VERBUM is the
> only mag I can think of that can claim this for the Mac.

Not any more, there are several others that can lay such claim.  Mostly`
small-circulation, speciality interest publications, but that's what you'd
expect with new technology coming on line.  Exactly what happened with the
amiga-produced publications.  So what's new.

It all brings to mind Dr. Johnson's remarkable dancing dog:  the remarkable thing
wasn't that the dog danced well, but that it danced at all.  Just because you
*could* produce a magazine completely with Amigas/Macs doesn't necessarily mean
that you *should*.  Use the tools that produce the desired results to get the
best quality for your production.  If it runs on your computer, great, if not,
then you'll wait a little longer.  Those with higher standards of "acceptable"
will wait longer than those with lower expectations.

And even with beautiful production standards, you can't seem to get *any*
of the trade rags to display consistent writing quality, or even good
spelling.

> Even though the term is over-used, the Amiga is the most capable MultiMedia
> platform, when you take into account everything that's built in, multitasking,
> interprocess communications, etc.

Hardly.  But it *is* likely to fit the bill down in its price range.  It would
be better with better software support.

> Support for the Amiga has been shallow at best in the past, but things are
> changing all the time...perhaps you should stick to commenting on something
> you're alittle more familiar with.

You need a bit more learning about the tools and techniques of the publishing
trade.  There's plenty of time for that.

--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------