#PageStream enthusiast
3 messages in this thread
I have been using PageStream since it came out (yes, I'm a registered owner) a
while I await the latest update (I have v1.61), I can only say that I have been
more than pleased with PageStream. I had been using Professional Page to
produce my user's group newsletter until March of this year and I find that
overall I am much more comfortable with PgS than its competition. I have found
few bugs of note and believe me, I have used more heavily touted software with
many more bugs than PgS.
RS
Rex;
I also use pgs but can't say that I use anything else with the bug level of
pgs. I am about to try the new City Desk to see if it is any better.
=>73<=, bill =>KB7LX @ KC4EWO<=
Rex,
It's always nice to see someone able to use a tool to get a job done, and be
satisfied with its performance. Howvever, when the tool is _seriously_ flawed
and is beieng used to accomplish very limited work, maybe it appears to be OK.
Pgs cannot be used at all in a professional way to produce production quality
output. I don't want to start another argument about Post Script output vs dot
matrix, but the purpose of these programs is to produce typeset quality. The
lower quality output on dot matrix printers is nice. But its like saying that a
rudimentary public domain C complier is just as good as a commercial product
even though it will only produce limited code, crashes often, corrupts your
data, and drives you to frustration. If I no nothing about real programming,
and use the PD complier to print "Hello world" to the screen, and then
proclaim, "Well, it works for me. Must be good" , I'm really missing the point.
Whoops . . . that line up there should have read, 'If I _know_ nothing about
real programming . . .
Unfortunately, SoftLogik is using messages such as yours to proclaim that Amiga
users are extremely satisfied with PgS and find it to be virtually bug free,
and very productive. It is _not_. And as a Professional quality program it is
an embarassment.
Rich