Feel free to search all your favorite desktop publishing and graphic design topics here ...
or anywhere on the web. Simply select the appropriate button below.

Re: microsoftpublish vs. pagemaker

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Desktop Publishing Talk ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Beth on March 15, 1997 at 22:41:10:

In Reply to: Re: microsoftpublish vs. pagemaker posted by Alejandro on March 15, 1997 at 19:39:15:

: : help.. I have worked with Pagemaker for 6+ yrs. When we upgraded our computer and went microsoft I just started using microsoft Publish. I need some help to deside to upgrade my Pagemaker (5.0 I think) or stick with Publish or even upgrade that to '97. I would like someone's input.(I primarily do newsletters - 'always looking for interesting templates.)
: : Thanks,
: : Gail

: If I were you, I'd first download (or get in other way) the
: MS Publisher 97 trial version, and compare its features vs PM.

: I think both programs are good enough in Newsletter design.
: Publisher is easier and faster, and there is no problem in
: sending your work to any good printshop.

: If you need more flexible tools, precision in colors and
: other prefessional features, stay in PM.

However, if you ever "branch out" and want to do color work, etc. you'll need PM for sure. I don't think that the PM upgrade from 5.0 would be any more $$ than MS Pub '97, or if so, not much more. I think it's $99 for the PM upgrade vs. $89 or so for Pub.

I've used Pub and agree with you about the "ease of use" features, but there have been things I simply couldn't do in Pub--like get 2 test boxes realllly close together for the banner on my nl.

I did NOT have a good response when I called a few printers to get biz cards done from a Pub file--none of them would take the file--and one bawled me out for using it--=the old "it's not a professional dtp program" line, etc.

I haven't had that prob w/PM--so to be on the safe side, I guess I'd go with PM and use Pub for things you might just have photocopied, etc.

Just mho---YMMV

Follow Ups:

Re: microsoftpublish vs. pagemaker SK Pullen 10:16:46 4/11/97 (1)
- Re: microsoftpublish vs. pagemaker Adela 11:04:33 4/16/97 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: : : : help.. I have worked with Pagemaker for 6+ yrs. When we upgraded our computer and went microsoft I just started using microsoft Publish. I need some help to deside to upgrade my Pagemaker (5.0 I think) or stick with Publish or even upgrade that to '97. I would like someone's input.(I primarily do newsletters - 'always looking for interesting templates.) : : : Thanks, : : : Gail : : If I were you, I'd first download (or get in other way) the : : MS Publisher 97 trial version, and compare its features vs PM. : : I think both programs are good enough in Newsletter design. : : Publisher is easier and faster, and there is no problem in : : sending your work to any good printshop. : : If you need more flexible tools, precision in colors and : : other prefessional features, stay in PM. : However, if you ever "branch out" and want to do color work, etc. you'll need PM for sure. I don't think that the PM upgrade from 5.0 would be any more $$ than MS Pub '97, or if so, not much more. I think it's $99 for the PM upgrade vs. $89 or so for Pub. : I've used Pub and agree with you about the "ease of use" features, but there have been things I simply couldn't do in Pub--like get 2 test boxes realllly close together for the banner on my nl. : I did NOT have a good response when I called a few printers to get biz cards done from a Pub file--none of them would take the file--and one bawled me out for using it--=the old "it's not a professional dtp program" line, etc. : I haven't had that prob w/PM--so to be on the safe side, I guess I'd go with PM and use Pub for things you might just have photocopied, etc. : Just mho---YMMV

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Desktop Publishing Talk ]

Feel free to search the entire desktopPublishing.com site ...
or anywhere on the web. Select the appropriate button below.