DTP Independent Contractor question

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Elmo P. Shagnast » Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:19:16





Quote:> It seems to me that often these days when print shops say they have added a
> "digital press" they are referring to a machine that prints CMYK. This
> means, that if your customer's job is designed to print PMS 124 and PMS
> 511,  what will end up being printed will be roughly C0M27Y100 and
> C83M100Y69. Neither of these colors will match comparable printing using the
> Pantone inks.

You have a good point.

Now, depending on the gamut of the inks used by that digital press, you
may be able to combine those inks in a custom manner so as to better
simulate the spot color itself.

And in fact, that's what's happening with digital presses nowadays.  
They generally have a color gamut far wider than SWOP, for example, so
are able to combine their inks and get a much better CMYK representation
of that spot color than a standard SWOP press.  And the RIPs are
programmed to do just that.

Again, look at the whole job and see what makes sense overall.

Quote:> Additionally, from all the output I have seen from these
> machines both at trade shows and at various print shops, the quality does
> not approach that of the spot color printing, including the fact that there
> is always a sheen to the digitally printed work, even if it is printed on
> dull coated or uncoated stock. As a designer, I find this textural
> difference distracting, and so do many of my clients.

Really?  The quality thing surprises me.  The "sheen" issue doesn't.

Anyway, the world, it's a changin'.  Trust me.

Quote:> Of course, the other kind of "digital press" may use direct to plate
> technology, digital controls for the ink fountains, and such. So that even
> though the finesse is still handled by a (hopefully seasoned) press
> operator, there is precision and control in how that operator controls the
> press. Such presses are not in fact brand new. I have been on jobs running
> off such presses for years now. They are generally very expensive machines,
> and not in the domain of print shops whose clients bring them files produced
> in Microsoft Word, or Publisher for that matter.

Those presses frequently also have the problem of being strictly CMYK
devices, as you described above.

And the print houses that have these presses are large, but you know
what?  They get the Word/Publisher requests from their customers, also.  
And they DO NOT turn away work.  They figure out how to handle it within
their workflow.

They'd sooner die than allow a good customer to go somewhere else even
for a piddly little job that probably costs more to run than the
customer pays and is a pain in the rear to run.  It's called customer
service.  Those houses serve their customers and give their customers
absolutely no reason to go anywhere else for anything.

Quote:> That said, I also would like to know what the "damned impressive simple to
> use digital press" that you are referring to is. And why are you being so
> coy about the next great thing? ;-)

Xerox DocuColor 2000 series.  Someone finally broke out of the "it's a
color copier" game and moved up to creating a next generation digital
press.

As for the next great thing, it's not out yet.  But if you poke around,
you'll see what it is.  Nobody's being particularly coy about its
existence and scheduled arrival time, just the details.  But the people
who need to know this, already do know.  Those are the people running
their businesses and making plans for buying equipment and scheduling
technology.  ;-)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Jane Krate Dud » Fri, 22 Jun 2001 06:09:13



> And the print houses that have these presses are large, but you know
> what?  They get the Word/Publisher requests from their customers, also.
> And they DO NOT turn away work.  They figure out how to handle it within
> their workflow.

Oh, yes, they do. When their clients are major book publishers, they don't have to
take the "little guys" work.

Quote:> They'd sooner die than allow a good customer to go somewhere else even
> for a piddly little job that probably costs more to run than the
> customer pays and is a pain in the rear to run.  It's called customer
> service.  Those houses serve their customers and give their customers
> absolutely no reason to go anywhere else for anything.

These large printing companies are not stupid. They do not do work that is not
cost effective for them to do. And they do not do business out of desperation.
It's called knowing your market. And not taking business that is not appropriate
to take.

Quote:> Xerox DocuColor 2000 series.  Someone finally broke out of the "it's a
> color copier" game and moved up to creating a next generation digital
> press.

I have seen the output. It's nice. Not nice enough to change my or my clients'
major print buying habits, but nice.

Quote:> As for the next great thing, it's not out yet.  But if you poke around,
> you'll see what it is.  Nobody's being particularly coy about its
> existence and scheduled arrival time, just the details.  But the people
> who need to know this, already do know.  Those are the people running
> their businesses and making plans for buying equipment and scheduling
> technology.  ;-)

That still sounds quite cloak and dagger to me... but I am not in the business of
buying equipment. I am merely in the business of buying the best, and most
appropriate, printing to meet my clients' marketing communications goals, budget
and quality requirements.

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Elmo P. Shagnast » Fri, 22 Jun 2001 07:50:10




Quote:> > Xerox DocuColor 2000 series.  Someone finally broke out of the "it's a
> > color copier" game and moved up to creating a next generation digital
> > press.

> I have seen the output. It's nice. Not nice enough to change my or my clients'
> major print buying habits, but nice.

Right.  Which tells me that you don't buy that type of printing.  No big
deal; there is no type of printing that's 100% right for 100% of the
people.

However, there's a bunch of printing that is appropriate for such a
device--like the PowerPoint and Publisher stuff that people around here
despise so much.  It's a matter of using the right tool for the job.  
When your customer uses a certain tool because that's all he has or
knows, it's up to the printing professional to use the appropriate
printing tool to take care of the customer.  Could be a six tower
sheetfed press, could be an 8 tower web, could be a digital press.

Right now a major emphasis of digital presses is personalized
printing--maybe because that's the only thing they can do that a
mechanical press can't.  I'm still wondering if that's what will drive
the market, or if the market will respond in kind with a different type
of printing demand that the digital press will solve.

Quote:> > As for the next great thing, it's not out yet.  But if you poke around,
> > you'll see what it is.  Nobody's being particularly coy about its
> > existence and scheduled arrival time, just the details.  But the people
> > who need to know this, already do know.  Those are the people running
> > their businesses and making plans for buying equipment and scheduling
> > technology.  ;-)

> That still sounds quite cloak and dagger to me... but I am not in the
> business of
> buying equipment. I am merely in the business of buying the best, and most
> appropriate, printing to meet my clients' marketing communications goals,
> budget
> and quality requirements.

Xerox is coming out with its "FutureColor" device (it's been bandied
about in the press quite a bit now; Xerox is not being shy about it),
probably around the end of the year.  100 impressions/minute.  About the
same time, Heidelberg is coming out with NexPress.  They're aimed at
similar high end, professional markets.

I think Xerox is hoping to do for commercial color printing what their
DocuTech did for black and white.  However, I think they're going a big
step further:  they're claiming the FutureColor output will rival
anything off a large commercial press, quality-wise.  Time will tell.

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Jane Krate Dud » Fri, 22 Jun 2001 10:52:57



> <snip>

> Right now a major emphasis of digital presses is personalized
> printing--maybe because that's the only thing they can do that a
> mechanical press can't.  I'm still wondering if that's what will drive
> the market, or if the market will respond in kind with a different type
> of printing demand that the digital press will solve.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Although for many companies, the need for
print-on-demand, as this market is called, is still limited, the type of digital
printing you describe has tremendous applications for short-run and personalized
printing. I think that on a per-unit cost basis, however, it will still be a while
before digital can compete with offset printing for larger run jobs, simply because
of the cost of consumables for the digital printers... from what I have seen so far,
the cost per piece does not go down the more you print in digital, where as it is
considerably less expensive (per unit) to print large runs on offset. Of course, for
really short runs (say, under 100 pieces), I would agree that the Xerox is a great
way to go. As long as you are not expecting the same quality as offset. Or,
perceptions of quality in printed work varying as they do, perhaps I should say as
long as you are not expecting the same look as offset.

Quote:> Xerox is coming out with its "FutureColor" device (it's been bandied
> about in the press quite a bit now; Xerox is not being shy about it),
> probably around the end of the year.  100 impressions/minute.  About the
> same time, Heidelberg is coming out with NexPress.  They're aimed at
> similar high end, professional markets.

> I think Xerox is hoping to do for commercial color printing what their
> DocuTech did for black and white.  However, I think they're going a big
> step further:  they're claiming the FutureColor output will rival
> anything off a large commercial press, quality-wise.  Time will tell.

I will look forward with interest to both the Xerox and Heidelberg developments.

Cheers,
Jane

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Elmo P. Shagnast » Fri, 22 Jun 2001 11:25:34




Quote:> from what I have seen so far,
> the cost per piece does not go down the more you print in digital,

Well, to a point it does.  If you're going to print 1000 pieces a month
in digital and do it with a large press, that'll cost you big time
(machine costs notwithstanding).  But if you print 100,000 pieces a
month, the price per piece is considerably less.

But it can go down only so far.  With no makeready, there's nothing to
amortize across a run.  And the costs are still higher per piece above a
certain point.

Quote:> Of course, for
> really short runs (say, under 100 pieces), I would agree that the Xerox is a
> great
> way to go.

The crossover is considerably higher now, because per-piece costs have
come way down for digital.
 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00







> > >LOL! You mean like how Bill Gates nearly missed the significance of the
> > >internet? If it wasn't for the Mac you'd still be playing with DOS,
> > >Puppyboy... Nearly all new technologies and trends started on the Mac, the
> > >iMac is just the latest but the list is long and still growing. Firewire?

> > Calm down, Steven.  If it makes you feel better then I'll agree with
> > you that Apple pioneered the GUI and a lot of other technologies.

> Naw, Mac stole it all from Zerox and Amiga perfected it :)

Another lame joke. Get your facts straight: http://www.MacKiDo.com/Interface/ui_history.html

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00





> > > I assumed that the only reason that Mac sales are huge right now is because
> > > it's been so long for the much needed upgrade in the Mac. Am I wrong to
> > > assume this.  ~Melody

> > Yes, you're wrong. The Mac OS gets an upgrade every half year.

> Yea, I hate having to upgrade the OS on this mac every half year. What's
> even worse is they charge you $$ to fix the bugs!

Wrong again. Nobody forces you to upgrade every half year. You can if you want
to. Apple does _not_ charge for bug fixes. The 8.1 update was free as was the
8.5.1 update. Get your facts before posting.

Quote:> The iMac is a
> > new paradigm (not an upgrade) that has yet to be matched by the PC world.

> *yawn*

Are they slow or what?

Quote:> Not at all. It's just the same old, stuck in a cute little box to woe
> people who care more about fashion than function. It's technology is a
> major backwards step: Old decrepid video; poor monitor.. In reality, it
> only "saves" two cables, the video and the monitor power cable. Big
> freaking whoop. You have to add those back for a USB floppy or Zipdrive.

You're stuck in old thinking. This is a network computer made to perform well
in a network or to access the internet. That's why it hat fast ethernet buitl
in. BTW: the monitor is better than most entry level PC monitors. The video
board was upgraded recently I believe.

Quote:> There is no reason for me to "upgrade" from my G3 tower to the Imac. Nor
> would I even "upgrade" from this old Mac ( 604e ) to it.

Apple doesn't  market this as an upgrade for high end Macs.

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00





> >BTW: I'm surprised that a seasoned paste-up artist, working in the industry
> >for 14 years wouldn't know the facts about font metrics and that you would make
> >statements about Macs while you haven't seen one up close for at least a year.
> >And you are accusing _me_ of having "long-held beliefs about PCs"? You're
> >joking, right?

> Actually, I have been working in the industry for more like 27 years,
> the last 14 of which have I've been using PCs.  My point about the
> fonts being downloaded or used from a Rip's hard drive is still a
> valid argument for pointing out font issues when things don't match up
> correctly, but I should have checked my facts about the metrics before
> popping off at you to check YOURS.  I use a Mac every day.  The
> problem is that it is a Power Mac 8100/80 and uses System 7.5.  

7.5!? that's the worst. You should at least run 7.6.1 on that machine, 8.1
would be even better. You could even pop in a ($500) G3 upgrade in this Mac.

Quote:> This thread has been great fun although nothing was really solved.  I
> only joined in because things were so slow this holiday week. I read
> this group a lot though so I'll probably make comments in the future.
> In the meantime, Happy Holidays Steven and all who were following.

Have fun.

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> > Apple has not retreated. It still stands behind the results of the Bytemark
> > test which they referred to in their ads. No matter how you want to twist
> > things for the sake of your own argument.

> No, they retreated from their blanket claims that the imac itself, is
> faster than any PII system. They now, for most of their ads at least, make
> it clear they are only refering to the processor being faster in a
> specific test.

They have always referred to that test.

Quote:> This is a stark comparison to their previous misleading
> adds. Some people who bought the Imac, thinking it'll outperform any
> PII400 in all area's were sorely hurt.
> For example, we had one gung ho  kid who swallowed the marketing BS trying
> to raze us.. He wasn't laughing once he saw how Unreal only got around
> 10FPS on his "twice as fast" Imac.  Heh, like the Imac with its pathetic
> video would be faster than either my G3, or my PII400 with a $2500 video
> card.  *grin*

Again, if you can't read, or read only selectively that's your problem.

Quote:> However, luckily, ( or not so luckily, depending on point of view ), the
> vast majority of  iMac purchasers have no experience with either platforms
> current state of the art. I hope that it gives Mac enough $$, they can
> have drastic reductions in prices in their G3's towers.

--

(remove * if present)
 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by John Jord » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>>>So Linotype is not one of those high quality font vendors? I took both fonts
>>>straight from a Linotype CD.

>>Couldn't say. Evidently not. I don't have any Linotype fonts. I didn't
>>even know Linotype sold fonts for both platforms.

>Linotype is an older foundry than Monotype. In fact it's the second oldest
>foundry I know of, Berthold is the oldest I believe. The Linotype library has
>about 4000 fonts, it is the source of the originals.

Who cares? Linotype could be owned be descendants from Gutenberg. The
age of the company or number of fonts they sell has nothing to do with
whether their cross-platform fonts have the same metrics.

Quote:>>>Identical to what? Did you compare the same output from different
>>>imagesetters? Were the fonts replaced?

>>No, the same imagesetter. Mac-based service bureau. PageMaker native
>>file using Adobe fonts only. The service bureau owns the entire Adobe
>>collection, so they simply used the Mac versions on the Mac that
>>opened my file. I didn't have to send them my font files, not that
>>they could have used them anyway, since they are Windows version.
>>PageMaker/Mac recognized all the fonts in my file when they opened it
>>and didn't give any "missing font" error messages. Output was
>>identical to my office proof.
>This is the exception rather than the rule. The two files I printed also
>looked identical until I superimposed one over the other. Adobe itself advises
>you to check for shifting line breaks and special characters when changing
>fonts cross platform. If I get my hands on some Adobe TrueType fonts for
>Windows I'll repeat my test. (to do the test with Type 1 fonts I'd have to go
>to a service bureau and pay for the test which is too drastic a measure as of yet)

This is one test you won't be making. You won't get any Adobe TrueType
fonts for Windows. Or for Mac, for that matter. Adobe sells only Type
1 fonts. They kind of invented the format, you know ...

Here are my little house rules about fonts and cross-platform
problems:

1) If I must go cross-platform with native files, then all fonts must
be Adobe and I use only service bureaus who have the entire Adobe font
library (around here, most do).

2) If I must use non-Adobe fonts, then I send a .ps print file.

3) If I can't comply with Rule (1) or (2) above, i.e., I must send a
native file and it must have non-Adobe fonts, then I insist on a
service bureau that can send my file from a PC, so I can send my
copies of the fonts with the job. I don't care if the rest of their
computers are Mac's or TRS-80's or Timex Sinclairs, just so there is
at least one PC that they can send my file to the imagesetter from.

4) If I can't do (1), (2) or (3), I try to get out of the job.

In five years of DTP work on a PC, I have never had to go to level
(4). And I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I
have had bad film. And I have NEVER had a font under- or overrrun or a
font problem of any sort. The only bad film I have had was from
problems with graphics.

NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. Make the ISP
read "spiritone.com" by adding an "e."

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by soup2nu » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00




>> Indeed. Especially for those who do more scientific work as well; such as
> CAD/CAM, Pro-E, Solidworks, FEA analysis, and the like.

> But yes, fluffy, less scientific work can be done on the Mac..

Uh, Mr Lupine, you'd better tell those slackers over at UCLA to start
doing less fluffy scientific work:

(excerpted from www.maccentral.com)

The UCLA physics lab has been crunching big numbers on a new supercomputer.
It's not an IBM RS/6000. It's not an Intel Pentium Pro/200. And it's not a Cray
T3E-900, a Cray Y-MP, or a Cray T3D.

It's a Mac. Specifically, it's a cluster of eight Power Mac G3s teamed
with software
(MacMPI) that allows them to perform enormously complex
computations--simulating the interactions of millions of particles in
fusion energy
devices--that used to be possible only on the most sophisticated and most
expensive
hardware available.

How expensive? "It was astonishing to us that calculations which required a $20
million machine eight years ago can be done on a Mac cluster costing about
$11,000," says Dean Dauger, a UCLA physics graduate student and Mac
programmer who worked on the project.

To learn more about UCLA's "Project Appleseed," take a quantum leap to
http://www.apple.com/education/hed/aua0101/appleseed/.

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Fri, 25 Dec 1998 04:00:00




> >>>So Linotype is not one of those high quality font vendors? I took both fonts
> >>>straight from a Linotype CD.

> >>Couldn't say. Evidently not. I don't have any Linotype fonts. I didn't
> >>even know Linotype sold fonts for both platforms.

> >Linotype is an older foundry than Monotype. In fact it's the second oldest
> >foundry I know of, Berthold is the oldest I believe. The Linotype library has
> >about 4000 fonts, it is the source of the originals.

> Who cares? Linotype could be owned be descendants from Gutenberg.

Linotype is one of the most prestigious font foundries. I am sure they deliver
the best quality. If someone has never heard of it I'm glad to fill in the
blanks. From the Adobe TOC manual: "In addition to Adobe Originals typefaces,
Adobe licenses thousands of designs from the world's leading font foundries,
including Linotype and International Typeface Corporation."

Quote:> The age of the company or number of fonts they sell has nothing to do
> with whether their cross-platform fonts have the same metrics.

Not nessecarily, that's true. But my point shows that cross platform metrics
are not something to rely upon without a second thought the way some people
have stated.

Quote:> >>>Identical to what? Did you compare the same output from different
> >>>imagesetters? Were the fonts replaced?

> >>No, the same imagesetter. Mac-based service bureau. PageMaker native
> >>file using Adobe fonts only. The service bureau owns the entire Adobe
> >>collection, so they simply used the Mac versions on the Mac that
> >>opened my file. I didn't have to send them my font files, not that
> >>they could have used them anyway, since they are Windows version.
> >>PageMaker/Mac recognized all the fonts in my file when they opened it
> >>and didn't give any "missing font" error messages. Output was
> >>identical to my office proof.

> >This is the exception rather than the rule. The two files I printed also
> >looked identical until I superimposed one over the other. Adobe itself advises
> >you to check for shifting line breaks and special characters when changing
> >fonts cross platform. If I get my hands on some Adobe TrueType fonts for
> >Windows I'll repeat my test. (to do the test with Type 1 fonts I'd have to go
> >to a service bureau and pay for the test which is too drastic a measure as of yet)

> This is one test you won't be making. You won't get any Adobe TrueType
> fonts for Windows. Or for Mac, for that matter. Adobe sells only Type
> 1 fonts. They kind of invented the format, you know...

You're right. I forgot that one while thinking about how this can be tested. I
don't use TrueType fonts anyway, but for this test they come in handy because
I can install both the windows and the Mac version on my Mac. Like I said, I'd
have to spend money to do the test with Type 1 fonts.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:> Here are my little house rules about fonts and cross-platform
> problems:

> 1) If I must go cross-platform with native files, then all fonts must
> be Adobe and I use only service bureaus who have the entire Adobe font
> library (around here, most do).

> 2) If I must use non-Adobe fonts, then I send a .ps print file.

> 3) If I can't comply with Rule (1) or (2) above, i.e., I must send a
> native file and it must have non-Adobe fonts, then I insist on a
> service bureau that can send my file from a PC, so I can send my
> copies of the fonts with the job. I don't care if the rest of their
> computers are Mac's or TRS-80's or Timex Sinclairs, just so there is
> at least one PC that they can send my file to the imagesetter from.

> 4) If I can't do (1), (2) or (3), I try to get out of the job.

All this shows that there _is_ an issue to get around. You claim to be able to
get around it by limiting yourself to using Adobe fonts only. If I have the
chance and I will do the test with Type 1 fonts. I'll post any findings here.
Sorry, I have to see it to believe it. I'm sure you'll understand...

Quote:> In five years of DTP work on a PC, I have never had to go to level
> (4). And I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I
> have had bad film. And I have NEVER had a font under- or overrrun or a
> font problem of any sort. The only bad film I have had was from
> problems with graphics.

> NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. Make the ISP
> read "spiritone.com" by adding an "e."

--

(remove * if present)
 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by John Jord » Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>>Um, some have specifically said they were faster than any "pentium II
>>system costing up to four times the price".  You can build dual PII or
>>CeleronA systems for less than 4 times the price!
>The funny thing is, that Wintel needs to keep increasing it's processor frequency
>(about ever month or so it seems) to simply keep up with a G3.  Buy the time the G4
>comes out (next year I believe), Pentium II (or whatever they're called then) will
>be up into the Gigahertz and still be slower.

This is called leapfrogging. Who is marginally ahead at the moment, or
even if one party is always slightly ahead is irrelevant. What is
important is that the other is always breathing down their neck. This
competition promotes improvements on both platforms. Mac's would have
half their current power if it weren't for the threat from the PC
side, and PC's would still be using DOS and Windows 3.0 if it weren't
for the advances made by Apple. Both sides NEED the other to continue
to exist and prosper.

Quote:>Take a look around you, any "real" system does NOT use Pentium technology.  RISC has
>been the prefered technology for any platform that relies on graphic based
>reliability and speed (even a PlayStation uses RISC).

There is always a tradeoff with RISC vs CISC. Just consider what those
acronyms mean -- "REDUCED Instruction Set" and "COMPLEX Instruction
Set." The CISC chip can do more stuff in the same number of Hz than
the RISC chip. But by reducing the instruction set, it becomes
possible to increase the Hz to compensate. That's the big tradeoff.

In the real world, after a new chip is finally off the production line
and into the hands of users, we find that a RISC chip will perform
about 20-25% better than a CISC chip of half the MHz. You would think
it would be twice as fast, but because it can't perform as many
functions at the same time, its advantage largely disappears. There
are also other factors -- operating systems and even end-user
applications are designed to use the CISC chip, and have to do a lot
of emulation when run on a RISC chip. The overhead tends to kill a lot
of the advantages of the RISC chip.

There are a lot of other factors to weigh also. Let's suppose you are
comparing something like Windows NT on an Intel CISC chip and Windows
NT on an Alpha RISC chip. What if there is a super-neato, incredibly
fast video card out there that runs fine on Intel machines, but there
are no video drivers for it on the Alpha machines? If you have to use
a mediocre video card on the RISC machine, it totally changes the
equation, especially for those of us in graphics and design.

Saying that RISC is better than CISC is a gross oversimplification of
a situation that is very complex. Sometimes RISC is superior, but in
the real world today, most of the time CISC is the far better choice.

NOTICE: The e-mail address is deliberately incorrect. Make the ISP
read "spiritone.com" by adding an "e."

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Serge Lyubomudro » Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> ... Adobe sells only Type 1 fonts. They kind of invented the format, you know ...

Not exactly. They sell TTF for the web.

S:)

--
Reply to:


 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Serge Lyubomudro » Sat, 26 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> Strong arm tactics?

> Heh, like Apple is the paradigm of not using strong arm tactics.. they freely
> let any company market products for Apple and the Mac/OS.. any computer
> company can legally make a MacClone; or distribute MacOS software..  Right?

An example. I sent a native PM file to a client. He made some changes in this
file. Then he cried, 'I can't print this file! What you've done?!' Sorry...

Any good worker, in any industry, if he care about his good name and quality of
his work, never let to use his brand and logo.

So is the Apple, I suppose.

S:)

--
Reply to: