Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!sequent!ogicse!milton!sumax!polari!rwing!arst
From: arst@rwing.UUCP (Mike Arst)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Mac Vs. Windows? (sorry)
Message-ID: <325@rwing.UUCP>
Date: 22 May 91 07:35:53 GMT
References: <1991May17.170732.13608@macc.wisc.edu> <9154566@bfmny0.BFM.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 60

Regarding the idea that, given a choice, someone should
always buy and use Windows, rather than a Mac, doesn't work for
all of us. The reason? What *software* is it that you want to use?

That's entirely dependent upon the situation. The cost of the
equipment and software, in general, cannot always be the sole
determining factor.

I started out in this business operating conventional
phototypesetting equipment, then switched to using
pseudo-typesetting software for CP/M, then pseudo-typesetting
software for DOS; then I began working with Ventura Publisher for
GEM; then I began investigating Pagemaker for the Mac. Finally,
after several years of using Pagemaker, I discovered QuarkXPress 3.0
and found it to have the best combination of features and
typographic functions I need to get my work done the way I want it
done. For my purposes, it is the best of the systems I have used so
far - hands down.

QuarkXPress is NOT available for Windows (yet). It will be, and I
reckon that at first it isn't going to be as stable as one wishes it
were. Another factor in this decision, for me, would be font
handling. I see message after message in some of the conferences
carried on DOS machines to the effect that people are having a lot
of trouble dealing with fonts under Windows. That was my own
experience in the past for the short time that I used Windows. One
font hassle after another. We've had our share of font problems with
the Mac, but nothing like what we experienced under Windows.

The place where I work has to support every Adobe font, and a lot of
others besides. That's a *TON* of fonts. No way could we do our work
quickly and efficiently under Windows - not a bleedin' chance. Not
until the whole business of font handling under Windows is much
improved. There are also a variety of programs that manipulate fonts
and graphics (including color photographs) that, it seems to us,
simply are not available for Windows yet, or are not sophisticated
enough or bug-free enough to be worth using under Windows.

So the question is not whether it's chiseled in stone that the one
system, versus the other, is "the best." It's: what do you need to
get done with it?

We could not get our work done economically under Windows. Period.
I am not a MacBigot at all (fully half of what I do involves using
Unix-ish text processing tools and batch files on a DOS machine, with which
I'm quite comfortable). But I could not in conscience recommend
Windows to anyone who has to do publishing work at the level at
which we do it. I would not cavalierly suggest that someone waltz
right out and spend a fortune on Mac equipment. But if they need to
do certain kind of work that is problematic under Windows, they
might well be shooting themselves in the foot to try getting what
they want that way. It would be a penny-wise and pound-foolish
decision.

Mike Arst, Seattle, WA
polari!arst@sumax.seattleu.edu

-- 
Mike Arst
rwing!arst