Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [PPLetterpress] font problem update

Expand Messages
  • Lamsland
    don t be to too hard on them, pagemaker is NOT the best app for collecting a file to send off to a service bureau. Personally I ve never had a ton of luck
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 6, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      don't be to too hard on them, pagemaker is NOT the best app for
      collecting a file to send off to a service bureau. Personally I've
      never had a ton of luck making a half way decent PDF out of it on a
      windoze machine either.


      Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
      Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae

      On Sep 5, 2008, at 8:05 PM, parallel_imp wrote:

      > Thanks to all who responded. The customer dug deeper and found the
      > missing fonts, AND the service bureau discovered they had the Mac
      > version already (and thankfully, their Zip 250 drive was still
      > functional). I suspect the dismembering of the font family may be from
      > purchasing by download.
      > As for pdfs, I think a customer who can't properly gather the
      > necessary files for a job may also have problems generating a good
      > pdf. That's been my experience anyway. But even on a PC laptop,
      > without Acrobat, he is able to do book designs that Thompson-Shore (or
      > whoever it is) accepts and prints.
      > firmly on the trailing edge, I remain, faithfully yours,
      > Eric Holub, SF
      >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Aaron
      If you are making poor pdfs it not pagemaker that is the problem. If you do not set up your Adobe Distiller® correctly. You have to set it up for high res.
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 6, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        If you are making poor pdfs it not pagemaker that is the problem. If
        you do not set up your Adobe Distiller® correctly. You have to set it
        up for high res. you have to change the setting to 1200 and 1800 and
        a few other things. The Adobe Distiller® is set up for pdf for non-
        printer. Your service bureau should have someone that can tell your
        the correct settings. I know this is correct because for the pass 8
        years I have been the production manager of a weekly newspaper that
        makes pdfs to send to our printing plant 15 miles away.
        Aaqron Poscovsky
        --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, Lamsland <lamsland1@...> wrote:
        >
        > don't be to too hard on them, pagemaker is NOT the best app for
        > collecting a file to send off to a service bureau. Personally I've
        > never had a ton of luck making a half way decent PDF out of it on
        a
        > windoze machine either.
        >
        >
        > Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
        > Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae
        >
        > On Sep 5, 2008, at 8:05 PM, parallel_imp wrote:
        >
        > > Thanks to all who responded. The customer dug deeper and found the
        > > missing fonts, AND the service bureau discovered they had the Mac
        > > version already (and thankfully, their Zip 250 drive was still
        > > functional). I suspect the dismembering of the font family may be
        from
        > > purchasing by download.
        > > As for pdfs, I think a customer who can't properly gather the
        > > necessary files for a job may also have problems generating a good
        > > pdf. That's been my experience anyway. But even on a PC laptop,
        > > without Acrobat, he is able to do book designs that Thompson-
        Shore (or
        > > whoever it is) accepts and prints.
        > > firmly on the trailing edge, I remain, faithfully yours,
        > > Eric Holub, SF
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      • George Chapman
        I use Pagemaker 7.0 and the built in pdf distiller seems to work fine when I forward files to outside printers. -- I don t send email, I just speak to people
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          I use Pagemaker 7.0 and the built in pdf distiller seems to work fine when I
          forward files to outside printers.

          --
          "I don't send email, I just speak to people . . . and it's amazing what you
          find out when you speak to a lot of people about . . . what's going on in
          anything you do."
          Sanford Weill
          Former chairman and CEO of Citigroup


          George Chapman
          In the heart of the beautiful San Juan Mountains of Colorado at 9,318 feet.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Gerald Lange
          PMers I was always a big PageMaker loyalist (hated Quark, just not intuitive enough) but I must say get ye over to InDesign. At this point, the typographer s
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 7, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            PMers

            I was always a big PageMaker loyalist (hated Quark, just not intuitive
            enough) but I must say get ye over to InDesign. At this point, the
            typographer's dream program. Beginning with CS2, Indy could/can
            convert PM files with ease. Only thing lacking, and a good thing,
            was/is it strips out the kerning. I used to have to work my ass off in
            PageMaker to get the kerning anywhere near what I expected from my
            metal type years. Indy provides exceptional kerning based on the
            metrics of the font. Of course, only technically well thought out
            fonts respond better in this regard. On lesser engineered fonts, a bit
            of work is required. Plus, high-end PDF generation in any of the Adobe
            CS programs is automatic.

            Gerald
            http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

            --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "George Chapman" <gachap@...> wrote:
            >
            > I use Pagemaker 7.0 and the built in pdf distiller seems to work
            fine when I
            > forward files to outside printers.
            >
            > --
            > "I don't send email, I just speak to people . . . and it's amazing
            what you
            > find out when you speak to a lot of people about . . . what's going
            on in
            > anything you do."
            > Sanford Weill
            > Former chairman and CEO of Citigroup
            >
            >
            > George Chapman
            > In the heart of the beautiful San Juan Mountains of Colorado at
            9,318 feet.
            >
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            >
          • bryan@manifestopress.com
            Quark: Awesome for book layout, the industry standard for small and large-scale publishing, dynamic and loaded with functionality if you take the time to use
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 8, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Quark: Awesome for book layout, the industry standard for small and
              large-scale publishing, dynamic and loaded with functionality if you
              take the time to use it. I consulted and trained in pre-press and
              desktop for most of the 90's. It does exactly what it's supposed to.
              The only drawback to Quark is the very long delay that happened
              between Version 5 and 6. for prepress, Quark's simple ability to set
              traps was a reason enough to use it. Markzware wrote so many add-ons
              for Quark it was almost impossible to be held back when using Quark.

              Pagemaker: I used to call it Ragemaker. the app sucked. Slightly non-
              intuitive but a good amount of people learned DTP using Ragemaker
              simply because Quark was too expensive for most colleges to purchase.
              Quark is light-years ahead of Ragemaker with respect to
              functionality. The text box in Ragemaker is slightly better than
              Microsoft Word, Text warp in Ragemaker was better than the early
              versions of Quark, but once Quark hit version 5, that all changed.
              There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
              Adobe. I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
              for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
              people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
              Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.

              Speaking as someone who worked in one of Boston's largest service
              bureaus and trained DTP professionals for careers, Ragemaker sucks.
              It was a dead-end application that followed a non-intuitive series of
              blunders that ended it's development. Simply put, it was developed
              when people were learning about DTP. Quark had a better approach and
              it showed. To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
              generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
              Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to sue
              anyone who infringed on their model. I worked in the magazine
              publication industry for many years. The Ragemaker crap that used to
              come through our door was a nightmare for production, filled with
              holes that required so many workarounds it was ridiculous.

              Indesign: Originally promoted as an upgrade to Ragemaker for
              Ragemaker fans. It launched in the void between Quark 5 and 6. then
              when Q6 came out with it's hefty price tage, the selling point for
              "Indy" was that it was bundled in CS packages. By the time Q6
              launched enough people had switched to "Indy" which ran on Apple OS
              X. Quark 5 still ran on OS 9. When Q6 launched to run on OS X, they
              had already lost enough of their market share to Adobe and "Indy". As
              page layout goes, it's a very powerful tool, but still not as
              intuitive as Quark 6, especially for the large-scale publishing
              industry.

              Illustrator: for single page layout and prepress, this is the
              application I use exclusively. Powerful on so many levels it's
              unbelievable. When they finally upgraded their trace functionality to
              one-up Freehand, they set the bar so high no one will ever meet it.
              If they could just come out with a stripped down version for print.

              As a side note, I also did a lot of the beta testing on the first
              releases of Aldus Trapwise and Presswise. Even Aldus acknowledged the
              superiority of Quark. It was the preferred application when testing
              Trap & Presswise.
            • Gerald Lange
              When InDesign was first leaked it was known as K2 (meaning 2000): the Quark Killer. It did just that. Quark was intuitive?, you have got to be kidding. Worse
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 8, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                When InDesign was first leaked it was known as K2 (meaning 2000): the
                Quark Killer. It did just that. Quark was intuitive?, you have got to
                be kidding. Worse thing about Quark, other than the fact that it was
                extremely unstable, the company arrogantly treated its customers like
                second-class citizens. How long did it take for Quark to recognize the
                OpenType type format? I can't imagine how they have survived, or
                should have.

                Gerald

                --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "bryan@..." <bryan@...> wrote:
                >
                > Quark: Awesome for book layout, the industry standard for small and
                > large-scale publishing, dynamic and loaded with functionality if you
                > take the time to use it. I consulted and trained in pre-press and
                > desktop for most of the 90's. It does exactly what it's supposed to.
                > The only drawback to Quark is the very long delay that happened
                > between Version 5 and 6. for prepress, Quark's simple ability to set
                > traps was a reason enough to use it. Markzware wrote so many add-ons
                > for Quark it was almost impossible to be held back when using Quark.
                >
                > Pagemaker: I used to call it Ragemaker. the app sucked. Slightly non-
                > intuitive but a good amount of people learned DTP using Ragemaker
                > simply because Quark was too expensive for most colleges to purchase.
                > Quark is light-years ahead of Ragemaker with respect to
                > functionality. The text box in Ragemaker is slightly better than
                > Microsoft Word, Text warp in Ragemaker was better than the early
                > versions of Quark, but once Quark hit version 5, that all changed.
                > There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
                > Adobe. I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
                > for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
                > people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
                > Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.
                >
                > Speaking as someone who worked in one of Boston's largest service
                > bureaus and trained DTP professionals for careers, Ragemaker sucks.
                > It was a dead-end application that followed a non-intuitive series of
                > blunders that ended it's development. Simply put, it was developed
                > when people were learning about DTP. Quark had a better approach and
                > it showed. To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
                > generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
                > Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to sue
                > anyone who infringed on their model. I worked in the magazine
                > publication industry for many years. The Ragemaker crap that used to
                > come through our door was a nightmare for production, filled with
                > holes that required so many workarounds it was ridiculous.
                >
                > Indesign: Originally promoted as an upgrade to Ragemaker for
                > Ragemaker fans. It launched in the void between Quark 5 and 6. then
                > when Q6 came out with it's hefty price tage, the selling point for
                > "Indy" was that it was bundled in CS packages. By the time Q6
                > launched enough people had switched to "Indy" which ran on Apple OS
                > X. Quark 5 still ran on OS 9. When Q6 launched to run on OS X, they
                > had already lost enough of their market share to Adobe and "Indy". As
                > page layout goes, it's a very powerful tool, but still not as
                > intuitive as Quark 6, especially for the large-scale publishing
                > industry.
                >
                > Illustrator: for single page layout and prepress, this is the
                > application I use exclusively. Powerful on so many levels it's
                > unbelievable. When they finally upgraded their trace functionality to
                > one-up Freehand, they set the bar so high no one will ever meet it.
                > If they could just come out with a stripped down version for print.
                >
                > As a side note, I also did a lot of the beta testing on the first
                > releases of Aldus Trapwise and Presswise. Even Aldus acknowledged the
                > superiority of Quark. It was the preferred application when testing
                > Trap & Presswise.
                >
              • Gerald Lange
                In defense of PM ... Hardly. Very few folks remember it was once owned by Altsys. Or that Fontographer was owned by Altyys as well. I find that most people who
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 9, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  In defense of PM

                  > There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
                  > Adobe.

                  Hardly. Very few folks remember it was once owned by Altsys. Or that
                  Fontographer was owned by Altyys as well.

                  I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
                  > for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
                  > people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
                  > Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.

                  I have never had a pirated copy of PageMaker or Quark.

                  >
                  To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
                  > generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
                  > Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to sue
                  > anyone who infringed on their model.

                  Apparently Adobe was able to work that out, Re: InDesign. Quark's
                  model was based on previous proprietary applications. They could sue
                  whoever they wanted. Big deal. Did they ever win? They should have
                  paid more attention to the product.

                  Gerald
                • parallel_imp
                  ... Gerald, both sides of this argument seem pretty damn subjective. I went straight from metal type to XPress 3.2, no computing experience, hadn t even done
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 9, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "Gerald Lange" <Bieler@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > When InDesign was first leaked it was known as K2 (meaning 2000):
                    > the Quark Killer. It did just that. Quark was intuitive?, you have
                    > got to be kidding.

                    Gerald, both sides of this argument seem pretty damn subjective. I
                    went straight from metal type to XPress 3.2, no computing experience,
                    hadn't even done phototype since school 20 years before. I found it
                    extremely easy to learn, everything I knew from assembling type into
                    lines and pages was there, so for me "intuitive" would be accurate.
                    All I need to do in digital typesetting, I can still do in v
                    4.1--but then I don't do catalogs. Never experienced any instability,
                    never had to deal with their hated customer service, nor did my
                    associates. I've used Adobe products too, but found the tools for
                    handling type completely obscure without using the manual and
                    therefore "non-intuitive". But I have said this before.
                    I haven't used InDesign yet, maybe I'll have a conversion
                    experience with it, but frankly I've come to hate learning new
                    software. My ageing brain can only process so much, and learning
                    linecasters--a finite realm--is infinitely more satisfying.
                    --Eric Holub, SF
                  • bryan@manifestopress.com
                    Quark still beats Indesign as a production tool. Indesign did not kill Quark Intuitive for sure! Indesign, like all Adobe programs, tries to do too much. I
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 9, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Quark still beats Indesign as a production tool. Indesign did not
                      "kill" Quark Intuitive for sure! Indesign, like all Adobe programs,
                      tries to do too much.

                      I wonder what would have happened if Quark bought Aldus. they would
                      have had a great suite to rework and bundle with Quark � Freehand,
                      Press/Trapwise. Adobe could have gone down the Web path with
                      Macromedia, and Quark could have gone down the print path with their
                      Print Suite.

                      Of all the students I trained as a consultant, I can only think of
                      one who insisted that Ragemaker was better than Quark. She ended up
                      being replaced mainly because of her crappy attitude about everything
                      but her Bible-beating Jesus rants. Training strippers, printers etc.,
                      in companies who were bringing their own pre-press in-house, was
                      challenging. I trained them to use Quark, simply because it is a very
                      powerful tool and very easy to use. People picked it up quickly and
                      it fit into existing workflows very easily. Everyone was psyched to
                      drop Ragemaker and switch to Quark. It most certainly wasn't
                      unstable. OS9 was unstable and quark relied heavily on apple's pre-
                      OS X backbone.

                      Quark was arrogant, much like Adobe is today. That arrogance was
                      mainly because their software was so powerful and light-years ahead
                      of anyone else trying to sell publishing or DTP software. That
                      arrogance was also reflected in their price tag for the package.

                      I worked at the Boston Phoenix from 91-93. I filled in as the
                      "paginator" every 6 weeks. Laying out a weekly paper on deadline. The
                      power of Quark was very evident. The "Library" pallet was something
                      that made my life so much easier. Every headline combination, columns
                      with preset faces and spacing, drop caps etc was right there at my
                      fingertips.

                      I found that most people who railed against Quark were generally just
                      more about trying to be "different" and "not sellout to Quark".
                      Honestly, anyone who continued to use Ragemaker had a hard time
                      selling themselves as serious designers or production people.

                      When I worked at Graphics Express in Boston, I was in the "Projects"
                      department. We ran catalogue, magazines and books to film. Usually 4-
                      color seps hundreds of pages. etc. . The only people submitting work
                      in Ragemaker were hacks. I could look at a piece of film and tell you
                      if it was from Ragemaker just by the crappy way Ragemaker handled
                      text. That windowshade text box was a joke....a step above people who
                      insisted on using Microsoft Publisher...LOL

                      Stable Postscript didn't seem to be in Ragemakers vocabulary. Run a
                      file to a laser printer and it wouldn't match what came out of the
                      laser printer.





                      bryan hutcheson
                      manifesto letterpress / industrie standard
                      116 pleasant street - 201/203
                      easthampton, ma 01027
                      p:877.529.0009
                      f:413.529.1177
                      www.manifestopress.com
                      _________________________________
                      full-service commercial letterpress
                      announcements
                      stationery
                      packaging
                      posters





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Scott Rubel
                      I did some beautiful books in Quark and was able to make it do what I wanted. I found it an improvement over Pagemaker in the early days, though I emphasize I
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 9, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I did some beautiful books in Quark and was able to make it do what I
                        wanted. I found it an improvement over Pagemaker in the early days,
                        though I emphasize I had to MAKE it do what I wanted at times. It is
                        true that, especially in the past six years or so, they have had
                        outrageously hostile upgrade and support policies. InDesign is the only
                        thing in town for me now, and I every time I've opened an old Quark file
                        in it, the translation has been flawless with few exceptions.

                        --Scott

                        Gerald Lange wrote:
                        > When InDesign was first leaked it was known as K2 (meaning 2000): the
                        > Quark Killer. It did just that. Quark was intuitive?, you have got to
                        > be kidding. Worse thing about Quark, other than the fact that it was
                        > extremely unstable, the company arrogantly treated its customers like
                        > second-class citizens. How long did it take for Quark to recognize the
                        > OpenType type format? I can't imagine how they have survived, or
                        > should have.
                        >
                        > Gerald
                        >
                        > --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "bryan@..." <bryan@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >> Quark: Awesome for book layout, the industry standard for small and
                        >> large-scale publishing, dynamic and loaded with functionality if you
                        >> take the time to use it. I consulted and trained in pre-press and
                        >> desktop for most of the 90's. It does exactly what it's supposed to.
                        >> The only drawback to Quark is the very long delay that happened
                        >> between Version 5 and 6. for prepress, Quark's simple ability to set
                        >> traps was a reason enough to use it. Markzware wrote so many add-ons
                        >> for Quark it was almost impossible to be held back when using Quark.
                        >>
                        >> Pagemaker: I used to call it Ragemaker. the app sucked. Slightly non-
                        >> intuitive but a good amount of people learned DTP using Ragemaker
                        >> simply because Quark was too expensive for most colleges to purchase.
                        >> Quark is light-years ahead of Ragemaker with respect to
                        >> functionality. The text box in Ragemaker is slightly better than
                        >> Microsoft Word, Text warp in Ragemaker was better than the early
                        >> versions of Quark, but once Quark hit version 5, that all changed.
                        >> There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
                        >> Adobe. I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
                        >> for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
                        >> people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
                        >> Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.
                        >>
                        >> Speaking as someone who worked in one of Boston's largest service
                        >> bureaus and trained DTP professionals for careers, Ragemaker sucks.
                        >> It was a dead-end application that followed a non-intuitive series of
                        >> blunders that ended it's development. Simply put, it was developed
                        >> when people were learning about DTP. Quark had a better approach and
                        >> it showed. To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
                        >> generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
                        >> Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to sue
                        >> anyone who infringed on their model. I worked in the magazine
                        >> publication industry for many years. The Ragemaker crap that used to
                        >> come through our door was a nightmare for production, filled with
                        >> holes that required so many workarounds it was ridiculous.
                        >>
                        >> Indesign: Originally promoted as an upgrade to Ragemaker for
                        >> Ragemaker fans. It launched in the void between Quark 5 and 6. then
                        >> when Q6 came out with it's hefty price tage, the selling point for
                        >> "Indy" was that it was bundled in CS packages. By the time Q6
                        >> launched enough people had switched to "Indy" which ran on Apple OS
                        >> X. Quark 5 still ran on OS 9. When Q6 launched to run on OS X, they
                        >> had already lost enough of their market share to Adobe and "Indy". As
                        >> page layout goes, it's a very powerful tool, but still not as
                        >> intuitive as Quark 6, especially for the large-scale publishing
                        >> industry.
                        >>
                        >> Illustrator: for single page layout and prepress, this is the
                        >> application I use exclusively. Powerful on so many levels it's
                        >> unbelievable. When they finally upgraded their trace functionality to
                        >> one-up Freehand, they set the bar so high no one will ever meet it.
                        >> If they could just come out with a stripped down version for print.
                        >>
                        >> As a side note, I also did a lot of the beta testing on the first
                        >> releases of Aldus Trapwise and Presswise. Even Aldus acknowledged the
                        >> superiority of Quark. It was the preferred application when testing
                        >> Trap & Presswise.
                        >>
                        >>
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ------------------------------------
                        >
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Scott Rubel
                        The comment about pirating brought back a memory. Pirating is, of course, stealing, but I realize that I could transfer my typesetting skills from handset to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 9, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The comment about pirating brought back a memory. Pirating is, of
                          course, stealing, but I realize that I could transfer my typesetting
                          skills from handset to digital because someone "put" Pagemaker on my
                          first Mac in the early 80s. I barely knew where software came from back
                          then and had little clue that I was doing anything worse than taking a
                          cassette made from a friend's LP.

                          I guess I used a pirated version for a couple of years, but that's what
                          got me into it and purchasing legal versions ever since then,
                          subsequently to Quark, and then to InDesign, Photoshop, Freehand,
                          Illustrator, &c. Who knows what would have become of me (and how many
                          thousands Adobe and others would have missed out on) had it not been for
                          my "free sample?"

                          --Scott

                          Gerald Lange wrote:
                          > In defense of PM
                          >
                          >
                          >> There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
                          >> Adobe.
                          >>
                          >
                          > Hardly. Very few folks remember it was once owned by Altsys. Or that
                          > Fontographer was owned by Altyys as well.
                          >
                          > I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
                          >
                          >> for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
                          >> people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
                          >> Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.
                          >>
                          >
                          > I have never had a pirated copy of PageMaker or Quark.
                          >
                          >
                          > To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
                          >
                          >> generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
                          >> Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to sue
                          >> anyone who infringed on their model.
                          >>
                          >
                          > Apparently Adobe was able to work that out, Re: InDesign. Quark's
                          > model was based on previous proprietary applications. They could sue
                          > whoever they wanted. Big deal. Did they ever win? They should have
                          > paid more attention to the product.
                          >
                          > Gerald
                          >
                          >
                          > ------------------------------------
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >


                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Lamsland
                          The old rumor was that s why Microsoft never came down on anyone for pirating windows. Gates figured if they used it and liked it eventually they d buy it.
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 9, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The old rumor was that's why Microsoft never came down on anyone for
                            pirating windows. Gates figured if they used it and liked it
                            eventually they'd buy it.


                            Matthew "LAMMY" Lamoureux
                            Full Metal Press - Operis servo a specialis nundinae

                            On Sep 9, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Scott Rubel wrote:

                            > The comment about pirating brought back a memory. Pirating is, of
                            > course, stealing, but I realize that I could transfer my typesetting
                            > skills from handset to digital because someone "put" Pagemaker on my
                            > first Mac in the early 80s. I barely knew where software came from
                            > back
                            > then and had little clue that I was doing anything worse than taking a
                            > cassette made from a friend's LP.
                            >
                            > I guess I used a pirated version for a couple of years, but that's
                            > what
                            > got me into it and purchasing legal versions ever since then,
                            > subsequently to Quark, and then to InDesign, Photoshop, Freehand,
                            > Illustrator, &c. Who knows what would have become of me (and how many
                            > thousands Adobe and others would have missed out on) had it not
                            > been for
                            > my "free sample?"
                            >
                            > --Scott
                            >
                            > Gerald Lange wrote:
                            > > In defense of PM
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >> There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
                            > >> Adobe.
                            > >>
                            > >
                            > > Hardly. Very few folks remember it was once owned by Altsys. Or that
                            > > Fontographer was owned by Altyys as well.
                            > >
                            > > I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
                            > >
                            > >> for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
                            > >> people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
                            > >> Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.
                            > >>
                            > >
                            > > I have never had a pirated copy of PageMaker or Quark.
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
                            > >
                            > >> generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
                            > >> Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to
                            > sue
                            > >> anyone who infringed on their model.
                            > >>
                            > >
                            > > Apparently Adobe was able to work that out, Re: InDesign. Quark's
                            > > model was based on previous proprietary applications. They could sue
                            > > whoever they wanted. Big deal. Did they ever win? They should have
                            > > paid more attention to the product.
                            > >
                            > > Gerald
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ------------------------------------
                            > >
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Gerald Lange
                            Eric Well, yes, they always are very subjective. Bryan s, yours, and mine are likely completely different experiences. I never got involved with graphic design
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 10, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Eric

                              Well, yes, they always are very subjective. Bryan's, yours, and mine
                              are likely completely different experiences. I never got involved with
                              graphic design firms, my clients are always either educationally based
                              or of special interest. Mainly typographical rather than graphic
                              design oriented. I had worked with proprietary systems before getting
                              involved with digital. I have been working with computers since 1970,
                              online since 1976 (yes, it actually goes back that far, so does
                              email). When I discovered the Mac and PM, and Adobe Originals type, it
                              seemed the perfect replication for metal type. I didn't care what you
                              could do with the computer in terms of speed or distortion of type or
                              imaging or whatever. My only concern was is this as good as or better
                              than what I can do with metal? Within my parameters, I found that it was.

                              Gerald


                              >
                              > Gerald, both sides of this argument seem pretty damn subjective. I
                              > went straight from metal type to XPress 3.2, no computing experience,
                              > hadn't even done phototype since school 20 years before. I found it
                              > extremely easy to learn, everything I knew from assembling type into
                              > lines and pages was there, so for me "intuitive" would be accurate.
                              > All I need to do in digital typesetting, I can still do in v
                              > 4.1--but then I don't do catalogs. Never experienced any instability,
                              > never had to deal with their hated customer service, nor did my
                              > associates. I've used Adobe products too, but found the tools for
                              > handling type completely obscure without using the manual and
                              > therefore "non-intuitive". But I have said this before.
                              > I haven't used InDesign yet, maybe I'll have a conversion
                              > experience with it, but frankly I've come to hate learning new
                              > software. My ageing brain can only process so much, and learning
                              > linecasters--a finite realm--is infinitely more satisfying.
                              > --Eric Holub, SF
                              >
                            • bryan@manifestopress.com
                              Gerald One of the great things about these lists is finding the history of everyone involved. We all took somewhat differing paths to arrive, two feet planted,
                              Message 14 of 17 , Sep 10, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Gerald

                                One of the great things about these lists is finding the history of
                                everyone involved. We all took somewhat differing paths to arrive,
                                two feet planted, in front of our presses. Some of us were moving
                                from a steadfast metal world to the digital.Other were born digital.
                                I got my start on an old type imaging system in our vocational school
                                back in Kansas City. Computers hit the street my senior year of High
                                School. If I knew then what I know now...oh yeah, forget I said that...

                                My respect that you actually made it with Ragemaker and didn't end up
                                in the nut house...LOL... Having rescued many a DTP professional as
                                they were just about to be sent away in Ragemaker straightjackets....
                                that says a lot about your mind over matter...


                                Cheers,

                                bryan hutcheson
                                manifesto letterpress / industrie standard
                                116 pleasant street - 201/203
                                easthampton, ma 01027
                                p:877.529.0009
                                f:413.529.1177
                                www.manifestopress.com
                                _________________________________
                                full-service commercial letterpress
                                announcements
                                stationery
                                packaging
                                posters





                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Gerald Lange
                                Bryan I guess my needs were never high enough to tax the program, so I never really experienced any problems, even through well over a decade of use.
                                Message 15 of 17 , Sep 10, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Bryan

                                  I guess my needs were never high enough to tax the program, so I never
                                  really experienced any problems, even through well over a decade of
                                  use. Typography, book design, nothing elaborate. At any rate, it
                                  certainly paid for itself.

                                  I don't use it anymore except for occasional testing of font metrics;
                                  it's a simple program that functions well at a simple level. And can
                                  be trusted in this regard. I assume you are correct though, that if
                                  expectations are too high, it might present problems.

                                  I use InDesign now for most such similar work, and my expectations
                                  aren't very elaborate in that regard either. Being a typographer is a
                                  simple life. I guess that is why I like it.

                                  Gerald
                                  http://BielerPress.blogspot.com

                                  --- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "bryan@..." <bryan@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Gerald
                                  >
                                  > One of the great things about these lists is finding the history of
                                  > everyone involved. We all took somewhat differing paths to arrive,
                                  > two feet planted, in front of our presses. Some of us were moving
                                  > from a steadfast metal world to the digital.Other were born digital.
                                  > I got my start on an old type imaging system in our vocational school
                                  > back in Kansas City. Computers hit the street my senior year of High
                                  > School. If I knew then what I know now...oh yeah, forget I said that...
                                  >
                                  > My respect that you actually made it with Ragemaker and didn't end up
                                  > in the nut house...LOL... Having rescued many a DTP professional as
                                  > they were just about to be sent away in Ragemaker straightjackets....
                                  > that says a lot about your mind over matter...
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Cheers,
                                  >
                                  > bryan hutcheson
                                  > manifesto letterpress / industrie standard
                                  > 116 pleasant street - 201/203
                                  > easthampton, ma 01027
                                  > p:877.529.0009
                                  > f:413.529.1177
                                  > www.manifestopress.com
                                  > _________________________________
                                  > full-service commercial letterpress
                                  > announcements
                                  > stationery
                                  > packaging
                                  > posters
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  >
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.