Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!herald.usask.ca!alberta!ubc-cs!uw-beaver!milton!dali.cs.montana.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!sequent!cseaman
From: cseaman@sequent.UUCP (Chris "The Bartman" Seaman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: Okay, you Amiga Types, its time to bash your amiga. :)
Message-ID: <53159@sequent.UUCP>
Date: 14 Feb 91 17:53:20 GMT
References: <91031.190832JKT100@psuvm.psu.edu> <39174@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Sequent Computer Systems, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 69

Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com writes:
< A previous poster declared PageMaker to be far superior to PageStream and
< Professional Page.  I agree completely about Pro. Page.
< 
< A subsequent poster asked for specifics on what makes PageMaker better.
< 
< I have used PageMaker since it came out (on both IBM and Mac).
< 
< I have used Professional Page since it came out and have sunk a lot of
< money into the original software plus several upgrades.

It seems to me that the bulk of the problems stated in your article
can be divided into three categories:

	1.  Ease of use
	2.  Performance (speed, not necessarily features)
	3.  Cost to upgrade

First, with regard to the cost of upgrades, you mention that you have
used Pagemaker since it came out.  That being the case, you must surely
be aware that it too has gone through several major and minor
revisions, and none of them have been what I would consider cheap.  I
used Pagemaker for several years, and, had it not been for the fact
that the company I worked for paid for the upgrades, I never would have
seen them.  I agree that that upgrades are expensive, but this is not
unique to Professional Page, or even to Amiga software in general.

Ease of use is a very valid issue, but, in the final analysis, what
concerns me most in a DTP package is the output.  I gather from your
article (having never used Professional Page myself), that you were
eventually satisfied with the results from Professioanl Page, and
considered them comparable to Pagemaker.  It was the steps required
which earned your frustration and disapproval.  Is this the case?

Finally, I would be interested to know the types of machines on which
you run your software.  You mention that the screen refresh, for
example, is acceptible on a Mac or MS-DOS machine running Pagemaker,
yet unacceptible on an Amiga running Professionanl Page.  Which Mac and
MS-DOS machine were you using?  I have used Pagemaker on 12MHz AT
"clones", and found the performance atrocious.  The same software, run
on a 20MHz 80386 system, performed admirably.  I would suspect that you
would find the performance of Professional Page to be substantially
improved on any flavor of accelerated Amiga.  I know that Professional
Draw performs fairly well on my 2500/20, but becomes a hair-pulling
experience on my old 1000.

< Sorry for the long post.  I've had SIGNIFICANT frustration stored up over
< this issue.  I bought a Mac specifically for desktop publishing 1.5 years
< ago because I could not provide reliable desktop publishing services for
< a competitive price on the Amiga at that time.  I don't like the Mac.  I'd
< sell it in an instant if I could provide the same services with the Amiga,
< but I can't.  At least, not yet.  My fanatic love for my Amiga is not
< sufficient, on this issue, to rose-tint my viewpoint.
<                                           
<                                    Julie (ducking very low) Petersen
< 
< (Gawd, I hate being a blue-meanie.  Will anyone ever talk to me again?)

Please don't take this as a flame.  I saw some important concerns
in your article, and am trying to clarify them for myself.

Regards,
Chris

-- 
Chris (Insert phrase here) Seaman |    ___-/^\-___
cseaman@gateway.sequent.com <or>  |  //__--\O/--__\\    nI' yIyIn 'ej yIchep.
...!uunet!sequent!cseaman         | //             \\
The Home of the Killer Smiley     | `\             /'