Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.misc:10280 comp.sys.next:14876
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!orion.arc.nasa.gov!ogawa
From: ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov (Arthur Ogawa)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc,comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Desktop publishing
Message-ID: <1991Mar29.065913.22766@news.arc.nasa.gov>
Date: 29 Mar 91 06:59:13 GMT
References: <1991Mar26.053352.13091@mendelson.com> <16775@chopin.udel.edu> <1991Mar27.052556.9495@vpnet.chi.il.us>
Sender: usenet@news.arc.nasa.gov (USENET Administration)
Organization: NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Lines: 115
Bcc: ogawa

In article <1991Mar27.052556.9495@vpnet.chi.il.us> hammen@vpnet.chi.il.us (Robert Hammen) writes:
|....I want to
|interject some real-world experience into the discussion. 

I commend anyone who wishes to inject reality into this flame-thread.

I generate and use typesetting systems employing the TeX engine, and have
some experience in using the Mac platform to do this work. I consider
my primary output the PostScript code that goes to the imagesetter for 
the high-resolution camera-ready copy, so the basic flavor of my environment
is TeX, Adobe Illustrator->PostScript on Macintosh.

However, I also have considerable experience with Unix and Dos as publishing
platforms, always using TeX as the formatter.

And I am seriously considering extending my house system to include the NeXT.
I have decided that the time is borderline/good for this acquisition and 
I'll try to explain why.

But first some responses.

|What about other publishing-related software for the NeXT? Is the whole
|Adobe Type Library available? Even if it is, what about other fonts? There

Yes the entire Adobe Type library is available for NeXT, as well as DOS, and 
for that matter, for any Unix box.

|are thousands of typefaces available in the world. Adobe does not make them
|all. You can now get most of them on the Mac. And yes, to some people, it is

Any font that conforms to the Adobe Type 1 encoding can be translated to
a format that will work on NeXT, or DOS. The tools are out there. It will
be interesting to see what Monotype, Mergenthaler, and the others will
do vis-a-vis getting their Type 1-format libraries out on non-Mac platforms,
though.

|VERY important that they match the exact face (and not some lookalike 
|knock-off) that they have been using traditionally for years.

Granted without quibble.

|....the infrastructure
|of service bureaus in this country does not have much support for the NeXT
|at this time. (Do this: call any typesetting shop in your hometown, and 
|ask them if you can get typeset output from a Mac disk. Now, ask them if
|you can get output from a PostScript file from a NeXT. Most of them will
|go "Huh?").

Given that I always ship straight PS files to the service bureaus, I have some 
similar experience here. Most SBs would like to see Mac media, but have
no problem when you provide straight PS files on that media.

Especially when they see how much faster and more trouble-free your
jobs run than the usual fare of One-Page-at-a-time-Maker and MS Weird
stuff. (OK, so flame me. These two apps _are_ notorious within the
service bureaus for encountering problems upon printout.)

|....I think the statement that "the NeXT is the best computer
|for publishing" is a ridiculous one to make.

I agree, and admit to a feeling of acute embarassment to think that such
a statement would be made in all seriousness.  Why hasn't a great peel of
laughter come to send these marcom guys right offstage?

Now on to what I perceive to be the big advantage of the NeXT platform, given
its great bang-for-the-buck:

Unix

OK, why  Unix, and especially, why tell Mac mavens about this? 

I have used Unix to do publishing work before, and I think it has some
significant advantages to offer over the Mac OS, namely multitasking,
large virtual memory, scripting language, and TCP/IP. I won't go into
explaining why these are an advantage in this posting, but if you're
interested in hearing my opinion, let me know. I don't expect NeXT
types to require education on these matters, though.

A/UX could offer these same advantages, but I think the NeXT offers
a stronger Unix platform for the dollar than the Mac. 

And the third party market for NeXT is in relatively good shape. Did
you know that an external hard disk for NeXT can be purchased at any
Mac store? That's right, they use the SCSI 1 interface.  Also, the
memory for the NeXTStation (monochrome) is identical to the Mac
(non-FX) memory! These are significant tag-alongs to the Mac's
popularity.

I will say that I am basing my decision to put a NeXT in my office 
on the expectation that spending money on a NeXT is for me more
cost-effective than buying an FX upgrade for my Mac. But this 
is a situation where I already have all the advantages of Mac 
ownership, and am simply adding a new tool. I don't expect the
NeXT to replace my Mac, just make the ensemble more powerful
than if I spent the same dollars on an FX.

So I make no claim that the NeXT is better than the Mac; I don't
need to make such a choice. I'll have the best of both worlds.

To be fair, I know that the NeXT will have certain disadvantages as well,
namely I can't by a TPD for the NeXT (or the price won't be so 
competetive compared to a Mac), I'll have to learn to be a competent Unix 
sysad, the NeXT isn't plug-and-play, etc. I won't downplay these
disadvantages, just factor them in.

But--and here's a challenge for Mikel's company--the lack of 
preemptive multitasking and user-mode operation in the Mac, coupled
with RAM memory limitations and lask of a Unix-like scripting language
after so many years has convinced me that Apple just hasn't the
committment to provide the power tools to the power users.
And that's got to be OK, really. My response is not to jump
ship, just not to buy my whole fleet from the same company.

Arthur Ogawa        Internet: ogawa@orion.arc.nasa.gov  Ph: 1/415/691-1126
TeX consultant      AppleLink: ogawa                    FAX:1/415/962-1969