Mac vs PC; Quark vs Pagemaker
SJ Lennon
it into a business on the side, flyers, advertisements, maybe a news letter,
whatever. It might even turn into a real job some day.
Natuarally, she's taping me for the hardware and software...
She suggested an iMac, plus either Quark or Pagemaker. She's used both
programs for class work.
Unfortunately, I don't know a whole lot about Macs. I'm lead to understand
that an iMac with 96mb will run either program quite adequately, but the
small screen size may be a problem. (Though for now I doubt if she's going
to be stuck at it 12 hours a day, so maybe this isn't an issue.)
I also seem to remember that Pagemaker also runs on a PC and I think I could
get a comparable P-3 with a 17" screen for about the same money.
I don't wish to start a religous war, but if anyone has any input or
comments it would be appreciated.
Thanks, Sam
Mike Koewler
dollars for a program. Look at the thread about being wary about
Publisher files. The truth is, almost anybody who has a computer and
printer can make their own resume, flier or newsletter. I've seen five
print shops (not major printers or Service Bureaus, but the guys who
produce or reproduce the above) go out of business in the last two
years. That may not seem like a lot, but that's 50 percent of the
printers in my area.
If I had to recommend which platform to buy, I would suggest she looks
at what her friends, especially her computer geek friends, use. That
way, if she has a problem, she can call someone for help without it
costing an arm and a leg.
Mike
John House
monitor, and Quark. And get another 128 meg RAM chip thrown in; she'll need it
for Photoshop fer sure. Or get anything else; it'll all work, more or less. But
the herd chooses the above for reaons that can be found in thread after thread
after thread . . . . and more threads here.
--Charles House
Thomas Steven Wright
>> programs for class work.
Any computer with only Quark or pagemaker will limit what you can do to
typesetting. Other programs and items to consider would be Photoshop and
Illustrator, as well as a scanner and a zip drive or CD Writer.
Having the computer and only one of those software packages will force
your daughter to get print-ready images electronically from whomever she's
doing the work for. That means simple stuff like resume's, basic
newsletters, typing other people's term papers, etc. unless she's getting
supplied graphics.
On the software I referred to above, Illustrator is essentially for line
and text art, photoshop is essentially for photo editing and more of the
high-end design stuff. It's also one of the standards for creating
web art, but there are cheaper packages that will allow some of the
same (basic) features for web art creation and editing. (These are not
the limits of either software package, but that can be looked at as the
intentions of the two packages).
One of the best things she could probably do would be to learn web design.
I don't think there's any end of communications with such an upside right
now, and realistically a $60 scanner from Sam's and a copy of photoshop
will get her going well. Plus a couple of books on HTML and she'll be
good to go.
Netscape includes "Netscape Composer" which is a drag-and-drop web design
program. You can do and/or learn the basics there and apply any HTML or
knowledge to that file. A Web page is essentially a text file that
links a batch of things together and forces the browser window to display
colors, line are, fonts, etc.
I am decidedly PC biased, basically because I like the ease of hardware
upgrade. But, for going on the Mac side I'd not recommend an iMac. It'd
be OK for now, but realistically if she wants to develop into something
more than basic stuff, a G3 or G4 would be better. IMHO, a used 9600/300
would be better than an iMac for design work, simply because the cost
would be comparable and expandability is an issue with iMacs.
You can also pick up the basic software cheap (relatively) from eBay or
used shops in your area ( http://www.ebay.com ). A used Mac could also be
had there, but checking the local newspaper "for sale" section may prove
more economical. And, in newspapers, you'll often find people "throwing
in" all the software they have.
I do all of my home design stuff on a P200MMX PC, with no problems other
than speed (128 MB RAM helps though). Until you get into the deluxe
graphcal filters in photoshop (which eat a ton of memory) something in the
200-400 Mhz range should be more than adequate, but aim for the high end
if possible.
Another consideration, if you buy a new machine, you can probably still
sell it for 20-40 percent of what you paid for it in two years. If you
buy used chances are you'll end up with a basement warmer when she
upgrades. To recoup loss on a Mac, two years should serve as a good
timeline. For the same on a PC, it depend totally on what has come out on
the market recently. A year ago I probably could've sold my P200MMX
without the monitor for $400 or so, now with the advent of 1GHz machines
appearing, I'd be lucky to get $200.
One more consideration before I stop babbling, is ease of use and
troubleshooting. Macs essentially do everything for you until you start
futzing around with stuff, PCs require some troubleshooting capability or
you're off at your local PC-Fixer every other week getting something done
also very lucrative). This is just inherent in Windows, but much less so
in Windows 98 than in previous versions. Supposedly, Windows 2000 will be
even more stable (Believe it or not...)
John House
Thomas Steven Wright wrote:
Nicely put, Steven, babbling and all.
--Charles House
Louis Lingg
> Make it easy on your (her) self and go with the herd: get a Mac, at
least a 17"
> monitor, and Quark. And get another 128 meg RAM chip thrown in; she'll need it
> for Photoshop fer sure. Or get anything else; it'll all work, more or
less. But
> the herd chooses the above for reaons that can be found in thread after thread
> after thread . . . . and more threads here.
> --Charles House
>
unless you really want to spend the extra money, and extra 128 megs on top
of 96 will be almost completely unnecessary. i can't think of anything
that requires that much ram, photoshop or not. i've been working with a
meager 64 for the last 3 years, and i rarely feel a ram pinch.
in cmyk, an 8.5 X 11 at 250 dpi, only requires 22 megs.
i understand that from mr. house's view, it might be different, but
someone trying to learn software will never find himself in the position
of having to simultaneously work with 8 different full-page high res
images.
anyway:
system: 12 megs
pshop: 30 megs
illustrator: 20 megs
quark: 15 megs
that's only 77 megs, and the setup will work very well. the other 19 can
be spent leaving navigator open all day, for what reason i have no idea.
also, even more importantly: tell your daughter to get a cruel,
spirit-killing job doing typesetting or film output. the constant yelling
will make her a whiz with whatever program she is forced to use.
i bet i'm not the only person who learned quark under those conditions,
and it has served me well.
-louis
--
"Why do they call it Chili con carne?
It should be Chili sin frijoles.
That's the important part"
-El Castor
Rob
lli...@hotmail.com (Louis Lingg) wrote:
> unless you really want to spend the extra money, and extra 128 megs on top
> of 96 will be almost completely unnecessary. i can't think of anything
> that requires that much ram, photoshop or not. i've been working with a
> meager 64 for the last 3 years, and i rarely feel a ram pinch.
>
> in cmyk, an 8.5 X 11 at 250 dpi, only requires 22 megs.
>
>snip
> -louis
Luis, oh boy, where to start...
a photoshop image 300 dpi/8.5"x11"/cmyk does NOT "require" 22 megs!
It IS 22 megs. Photoshop idealy needs 3 to 5 TIMES your file size in RAM!
If you alocate 22 megs to PS and work with 22 meg file, PS will almost
immediately run out of ram and start using scratch disk (your hard drive)
as "ram" which will result in MUCH slower performance.
regards
rob