DTP Independent Contractor question

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Lupi » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00





> If you were to recommend the IMac as a network terminal, yes.  There are way
> too many other options available for far less money that would be suited to
> the task.  A client of mine just outfitted his office in PII computers with
> Intel 10/100 cards and decent video, 4 gig hard drives and 64 megs for under
> $850 each - including monitor and OS.  If I were to suggest he go to IMacs
> at $1299 he would laugh me out of the door.

> What can an IMac offer for the additional $450?  At 12 computers, he would
> have to come up with another $5400.

Buy a pretty decent centralized server; or a wonderful high capacity laser
printer for that chunk of change; eh?

The imac should ditch it's fancy case; and offer it for under $850 ( with
the 64megs, instead of the 32, mind you ).

> --
>  - John Bobincheck
>    rocket at ccnet dot com



> >> Sure, this is not my first choice for a "net terminal"  there are way too
> >> many sub $1000 Wintel units out there that could be upgraded if future
> needs
> >> arise.

> >And you tell me _I_ am blinded?

> >> As for any other use on the mac platform, I would opt for the G3.

> >> --
> >>  - John Bobincheck
> >>    rocket at ccnet dot com

> >--

> >(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> > What can an IMac offer for the additional $450?  At 12 computers, he would
> > have to come up with another $5400.

> Buy a pretty decent centralized server; or a wonderful high capacity laser
> printer for that chunk of change; eh?

I doubt you will be saving that kind of money in the long run.

Quote:> The imac should ditch it's fancy case; and offer it for under $850 ( with
> the 64megs, instead of the 32, mind you ).

BTW: When did this thread become a hardware discussion on the iMac?

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> If you were to recommend the IMac as a network terminal, yes.  There are way
> too many other options available for far less money that would be suited to
> the task.  A client of mine just outfitted his office in PII computers with
> Intel 10/100 cards and decent video, 4 gig hard drives and 64 megs for under
> $850 each - including monitor and OS.  If I were to suggest he go to IMacs
> at $1299 he would laugh me out of the door.

> What can an IMac offer for the additional $450?  At 12 computers, he would
> have to come up with another $5400.

Speed and style.

--

(remove * if present)

> --
>  - John Bobincheck
>    rocket at ccnet dot com



> >> Sure, this is not my first choice for a "net terminal"  there are way too
> >> many sub $1000 Wintel units out there that could be upgraded if future
> needs
> >> arise.

> >And you tell me _I_ am blinded?

> >> As for any other use on the mac platform, I would opt for the G3.

> >> --
> >>  - John Bobincheck
> >>    rocket at ccnet dot com

> >--

> >(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00





> > > > Apple has committed itself to Firewire. Some time in the future PCs will
> > > > follow. If you insist on SCSI UW that's no problem, just plug in a
> PCI card.

> > > Ah, so I'm supposed to throw away around 3 grand worth of SCSI equipment;
> > > simply to replace it when and IF firewire perifs come out.. Gotcha.

> > You're not "supposed" to do anything. Read back the last sentence of my post.
> > Firewire perifirals _will_ become available.

> But the imac does not have SCSI support.

If you have 3 grand worth of SCSI equipment the iMac is obviously not your
solution to control that equipment. Nobody told you it was.

Quote:> So yes, you would have to throw
> away one's SCSI equipment; and buy USB/firewire equivelents.

If you insist on buying that cool iMac, yes. I would not advise you to do
that. If you were to buy the new Yosemite G3 you will have Firewire built in
and SCSI as an option. That's all I said. You keep coming up with new trick
questions that are more and more outside the scope of this thread.

Quote:> btw: nothing special about apple supporting USB/firewire.. My old-dell has
> USB, and it's upgadable to firewire.

What is your problem? What are you trying to prove? That DELL is smart enough
to use Apple's Firewire? You are wasting your time. More importantly, you're
wasting mine.

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> --
>  - John Bobincheck
>    rocket at ccnet dot com



> >> My response stands, it's defense of your platform that blinds you.

> >No, it is not. Take a look at what my initial statements was.

> If I read correctly, the need to have fonts substituted was based on mixed
> platform prepress, or same fonts from different foundries.

The initial question was about the differences between PageMaker Mac and
PageMaker Windows. My response was that fonts were the main difference.

Quote:> >> I can layout pages on a PC with fonts from 5 different vendors in both TT
> >> and T1 format and be 100% sure it will print as sent.  What else would
> you
> >> want your service bureau to do?

> >If there's no need to substitute fonts there's no problem obviously.

> >> If the file is wrong, it is an error you made, and it would come back to
> you
> >> incorrect anyway.  We all know operator error's are platform independent.

> >This obviously depends on the service bureau. Some simple mistakes can be
> >easily fixed at the SB saving money on both sides.

> I'm never that comfortable having the service bureau alter my files even for
> simple changes.  I feel it is not their job just as I don't cut the film or
> change the chemicals.  You have your own comfort level on this so I'll let
> it go.

> As for being cheaper, it is potentially more expensive for me to have the
> Service Bureau make the change as they reserve the right to charge a fee to
> edit a file.  I can resend the updated file within a few minutes for free,
> and be sure all my typesetting is correct.

I'm not talking about changes to the typesetting or the layout but rather print
settings and the like.

Quote:> Finally, the reason I think you are being a bit defensive of your tool is
> this is not a platform or OS problem, it is a quality control problem.
> Being in a position to have your fonts substituted is an error on the
> designers part.

Right.

Quote:>  Displaced fonts can occur in a Mac to Mac exchange as well
> as a Mac to PC or PC to Mac.

Problems are infinitely more likely in  a cross platform situation.

Quote:> It occurs because of operator error and not
> because of the equipment used.  If you know you will be sending your file
> cross platform and use incompatible fonts or graphic formats then you have
> committed a rookie manuver and need to learn a little more about what you're
> doing before you charge people for your services.

Right, and there are quite a lot of fonts with incompatible metrics and these
are not only shareware fonts.

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Brandon Blatch » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00




>In article


>> >Ah, so now I gotta pay $85-100 to buy 8.5.. simply to "add" what WInbloze
>> >has had for years. Sorry MacOs.

>> This is a silly statement. You're paying &85-100 for a SYSTEM UPGRADE that
>> happens to include a feature you like/want. You're not simply adding this
>> feature and this feature only for $85-100

>No, as that would be the only reason to upgrade. The rest is either free
>add-ons, or useless junk.

That feature would be the only reason to upgrade?! Okaaaaaay.....

Quote:

>> >I prefer using another utility that

>> A system upgrade isn't a utility.

>that "system upgrade" is merely the same operating system, with more
>utilities added to it. Nothing different, in concept, to integrating
>disk-defragmentation,file managers, or internet browsers.

There's native Applescript, new Navagation services,  a new Network
Browser, tightering Internet intergration and interface improvements.
None of this might interest YOU, but that doesn't mean it's "the same
operating system"

Quote:>> >somehow managed to offer that ulility for free. Ain't no way in hell I'm
>> >paying my hard earned money for what you had to steal from others.

>> Make up your mind. First the OS is terrible because it doesn't have
>> feature X. Then when feature X is added as part of an OS upgrade, you
>> complain 'cause you have to pay for the upgrade, yet you admit you've
>> already got a utility that does what you want for free! So what's your
>> problem?

>As the OS company was incompetent and impotent in including the feature
>for nearly twenty years. But a joe-blow company was able to offer it for
>free.

>Makes ya wonder eh?

Yes, what are you smoking?:) Is your life going to be destroyed by not
having this specific feature? Sheesh...

As usual these "discussions" are based on a particular person's preferences.

--
-Brandon

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by John Bobinchec » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


I don't have data on the speed issue of a PII 400 to a 233 IMac (or 266),
but in this case, it does not really matter as they are merely network
machines used for inputting data into centralized files and for workgroup
printing of documents.

A lot of $$$ for style.

--
 - John Bobincheck
   rocket at ccnet dot com



>> If you were to recommend the IMac as a network terminal, yes.  There are
way
>> too many other options available for far less money that would be suited
to
>> the task.  A client of mine just outfitted his office in PII computers
with
>> Intel 10/100 cards and decent video, 4 gig hard drives and 64 megs for
under
>> $850 each - including monitor and OS.  If I were to suggest he go to
IMacs
>> at $1299 he would laugh me out of the door.

>> What can an IMac offer for the additional $450?  At 12 computers, he
would
>> have to come up with another $5400.

>Speed and style.

>--

>(remove * if present)

>> --
>>  - John Bobincheck
>>    rocket at ccnet dot com



>> >> Sure, this is not my first choice for a "net terminal"  there are way
too
>> >> many sub $1000 Wintel units out there that could be upgraded if future
>> needs
>> >> arise.

>> >And you tell me _I_ am blinded?

>> >> As for any other use on the mac platform, I would opt for the G3.

>> >> --
>> >>  - John Bobincheck
>> >>    rocket at ccnet dot com

>> >--

>> >(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by John Bobinchec » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Actually, he is saving more.  He does not need to purchase any additional
hardware for day to day functionality, and the NT network agreed to full
tech support on the machines, network and OS for the next 3 years as part of
the deal.

"...The IMac is a new paradigm (not an upgrade) that has yet to be matched
by the PC world. " - Steven

Not only is the IMac not a new paradigm, it does not signify even a paradigm
shift.  This is the product of a formula remember the SE30 and the Next
Cube?  Both were self contained boxes that were marketed expertly.

In fact, I feel the success of the machine is due to it's marketing
(remember the 1984 ads) as compared to the competition (both Mac & PC) it is
deficient in several areas.

Steven, don't get me wrong, I still believe that the IMac is "cute" and has
a place in the computer world (although not in any "for profit" situations).

--
 - John Bobincheck
   rocket at ccnet dot com



>> > What can an IMac offer for the additional $450?  At 12 computers, he
would
>> > have to come up with another $5400.

>> Buy a pretty decent centralized server; or a wonderful high capacity
laser
>> printer for that chunk of change; eh?

>I doubt you will be saving that kind of money in the long run.

>> The imac should ditch it's fancy case; and offer it for under $850 ( with
>> the 64megs, instead of the 32, mind you ).

>BTW: When did this thread become a hardware discussion on the iMac?

>--

>(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by John Bobinchec » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Believe it or not, they were cheap!  I would have spec'd a 2 gig drive but
it would not have saved any significant money.  I had the same question
about the processors.

--
 - John Bobincheck
   rocket at ccnet dot com



>> I don't have data on the speed issue of a PII 400 to a 233 IMac (or 266),
>> but in this case, it does not really matter as they are merely network
>> machines used for inputting data into centralized files and for workgroup
>> printing of documents.

>If that's all you expect of it what do you need a 4gig HD for?

>--

>(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by snuf » Wed, 30 Dec 1998 04:00:00


Steven & John,

I can tell this debate's getting out of hand when all facts are going out
the window.

The Next cube WAS considered a major advance Steven, not just a "slow
version" of anything. With its high quality digital audio and object
oriented OS, it really was a revolution. There was no one getting that
much performance out of that particular 680X0 chip at the time. A Mac with
the same chip ran slower because of the OS. Too bad there wasn't any
software for it and it cost too much. However John, the Next cube was not
self contained. It was a cube version of your basic PC box. The monitor,
keyboard, and mouse were separate. The only thing that was self contained
was the Display PostScript screen imaging which meant that the printer
could be a cheap dumb box.

John said the Next cube was marketed expertly. Then how come sales did not
pan out and they stopped making the hardware? I never remember them saying
they broke any sales records. Steve Jobs got away with * when he took
that badly run and sinking company and managed to get $400 million for it.

All that said, I'm a Mac guy.



> > This is the product of a formula remember the SE30 and the Next
> > Cube?  

> Did these have the same processor as the high end Macs and Fast Ethernet?
> No, they were just slow versions of their high end counterparts.

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00





> > > > > Quick, in Pagemaker 65, what is the keyboard access to get to the
> Polygon
> > > > > Control tablet?  It's trivial on the PC.. not so on the Mac.

> > > > This is trivial, period. Unless you are constantly creating polygons while
> > > > entering text. I get this polygon panel up by double clicking the polygon
> > > > tool.

> > > I could care less if you think its trivial.

> > Well, excuse me, you said so yourself.

> > > I find being forced to use the
> > > mouse a major hinderance, as well as a severe impact upon productivity in
> > > many applications. You may not have have a problem with a more difficult
> > > OS; that does not taylor itself well to YOUR needs.

> > > btw: If the apple is so easy to use; shouldn't any beginner user be able
> > > to find out how to enable full-keyboard access to everything within 5
> > > minutes?

> > Not everybody is born a typist. Many creative people prefer the
> > "writing-style" input device over the "typing-style" input device.

> "writing style" would be a pen input device.

You may not be able to grasp this, but the mouse is derived from this. It uses
similar movement/orientation cues to the brain.

Quote:> The point is: for being the 'easiest' to use MacOS.. it sure takes someone
> a long time to figure out to have full keyboard access... if MacOS were
> truley easy to use, I wouldn't have had to hunt around for share-ware
> applications to do what MacOS is impotent in doing.

You already said that. You want me to repeat my arguments too?
So what is the marketshare of DELL?

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by John Jord » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>I don't mind you boys having a pissing contest of sorts, just please mop up
>when you're done.

>BTW, be sure to let me know when you figure out who's REALLY IS bigger.  :)

Ummm, Shelle, with Mac vs Win argument it's the same issue. It's not
the size of the tool, but how well you know how to use it.

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

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> I don't have data on the speed issue of a PII 400 to a 233 IMac (or 266),
> but in this case, it does not really matter as they are merely network
> machines used for inputting data into centralized files and for workgroup
> printing of documents.

If that's all you expect of it what do you need a 4gig HD for?

--

(remove * if present)

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Shel » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00




>>I don't mind you boys having a pissing contest of sorts, just please mop up
>>when you're done.

>>BTW, be sure to let me know when you figure out who's REALLY IS bigger.  :)

>Ummm, Shelle, with Mac vs Win argument it's the same issue. It's not
>the size of the tool, but how well you know how to use it.

Gee, that sounds like the argument long made by men who aren't quite
"adequately" equipped.   ;-)

-- Shelle

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michelle Feigen                    shelle AT enteract DOT com
shelle AT shelle DOT com                
        http COLON SLASH SLASH www DOT shelle DOT com
"I alienate more people before 9:00am than Congress
                                 can do in an entire session"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 
 
 

DTP Independent Contractor question

Post by Steve » Thu, 31 Dec 1998 04:00:00



> Actually, he is saving more.  He does not need to purchase any additional
> hardware for day to day functionality, and the NT network agreed to full
> tech support on the machines, network and OS for the next 3 years as part of
> the deal.

> "...The IMac is a new paradigm (not an upgrade) that has yet to be matched
> by the PC world. " - Steven

> Not only is the IMac not a new paradigm, it does not signify even a paradigm
> shift.

I think it does. The floppy in/out shifted to fast ethernet in/out.

Quote:> This is the product of a formula remember the SE30 and the Next
> Cube?  

Did these have the same processor as the high end Macs and Fast Ethernet?
No, they were just slow versions of their high end counterparts.

Quote:> Both were self contained boxes that were marketed expertly.

That is not  the significance of the iMac.

Quote:> In fact, I feel the success of the machine is due to it's marketing
> (remember the 1984 ads) as compared to the competition (both Mac & PC) it is
> deficient in several areas.

> Steven, don't get me wrong, I still believe that the IMac is "cute" and has
> a place in the computer world (although not in any "for profit" situations).

Don't get me wrong, John, I don't even know how this discussion turned into an
iMac discussion. As I see it the  iMac has a place in for profit situations. I
have
seen it in several such places and have asked about it where I got the chance.
I didn't
hear major complaints about it, some minor annoyances and a lot of e*ment.

--

(remove * if present)