f



justify new computers

We have 5 Mac workstations and 3 PC. The Pcs are in good shape the problem 
is in the Macs. The Macs are 2 dual 1.8 G5's and 3 400 G4's one with OSX and 
the other two with OS9. I check on our server last week and we had 163 live 
jobs.
The 163 broke down like this:
38 Windows Quark, Pagemaker, Indy
6 Something hideous Corel, Publisher, Word
9 PDF
14 OS 9 Quark5 or below, Pagemaker, or Illustrator 10 or less
96 OSX Quark6, Indy CS or other

How do you justify to the man in control of the money upgrading the 
remaining G4's to G5's with OSX and buying the software when the 
conversation with him goes like this:

Me: We need to upgrade these remaining G4's
Money Man: Why?
Me: They are seriously outdated and will not run the current software we 
need to use at any reasonable speed.
Money Man: Why do we need faster computer when we are getting the work out 
without anyone working overtime?
Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs 
to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with 
their computers.
Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when we 
are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?

Joe




0
12/31/2004 3:31:22 AM
comp.publish.prepress 3348 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

104 Replies
690 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 54

Accountant: Because we can cut one of those three jobs and still have a 
higher profit level.

Mike

Joe wrote:

> We have 5 Mac workstations and 3 PC. The Pcs are in good shape the problem 
> is in the Macs. The Macs are 2 dual 1.8 G5's and 3 400 G4's one with OSX and 
> the other two with OS9. I check on our server last week and we had 163 live 
> jobs.
> The 163 broke down like this:
> 38 Windows Quark, Pagemaker, Indy
> 6 Something hideous Corel, Publisher, Word
> 9 PDF
> 14 OS 9 Quark5 or below, Pagemaker, or Illustrator 10 or less
> 96 OSX Quark6, Indy CS or other
> 
> How do you justify to the man in control of the money upgrading the 
> remaining G4's to G5's with OSX and buying the software when the 
> conversation with him goes like this:
> 
> Me: We need to upgrade these remaining G4's
> Money Man: Why?
> Me: They are seriously outdated and will not run the current software we 
> need to use at any reasonable speed.
> Money Man: Why do we need faster computer when we are getting the work out 
> without anyone working overtime?
> Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs 
> to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with 
> their computers.
> Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when we 
> are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> 
> 

0
wordwiz (162)
12/31/2004 3:39:18 AM
In article <jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
wrote:

> Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs 
> to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with 
> their computers.
> Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when we 
> are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?

Seems to me you not only don't need faster computers, but you're
overstaffed bythree people.

You haven't answered Money Man's question: If you're getting the work
out without incurring overtime, what's the problem?
0
dave14 (1200)
12/31/2004 4:24:40 AM
In article <rR3Bd.15547$IZ2.6019@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
 Mike Koewler <wordwiz@fuse.net> wrote:

> Accountant: Because we can cut one of those three jobs and still have a 
> higher profit level.
> 
> Mike

So the moral of the story is you can have the faster computers at the 
expense of a coworker's job.  Luckily their boss seems to be clueless 
and doesn't mind having people on the payroll sitting around waiting for 
something to do.

- Allen
0
awessels1 (257)
12/31/2004 8:46:40 PM
"Joe" <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:

>Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when we 
>are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?

Ok, why?  If you get faster computers, instead of sitting around
waiting for a free computer you'll have more time for productive work.

Ok, what will that work be, and how will it help the bottom line?
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.

0
quite (1321)
12/31/2004 8:56:59 PM
I don't mean to reopen this old can of worms...

But this is precisely the reason I opted to build the 10 PCs in my
department. I like our 2 G4s well enough, but not enough to toss them after
a coupla years for new G5s. The PCs were cheap to build originally, and I
upgraded them with faster CPUs, HDs and video cards in the past year for
less than $300/ea.., or about what 2 low end G5s might have put us back. And
please don't harp on the old saw about how much more productive we'd be with
more Macs, 'cause we do just fine with our boxy, beige, hideous windoze
abominations that somehow miraculously manage to do what a Mac can for half
the price....;-)

Is there any particular reason you need new Macs vs. more PCs?



"Aandi Inston" <quite@dial.pipex.con> wrote in message
news:41d5bca9.1334941444@read.news.uk.uu.net...
> "Joe" <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:
>
> >Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when
we
> >are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>
> Ok, why?  If you get faster computers, instead of sitting around
> waiting for a free computer you'll have more time for productive work.
>
> Ok, what will that work be, and how will it help the bottom line?
> ----------------------------------------
> Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
> Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
>


0
bixster (175)
12/31/2004 10:10:45 PM
Ummm.. Because we are a printer and in the business of outputting files not 
creating them. I can not control what platform our customers choose to use I 
just have to support it.

I don't disagree on the PC's I have built the last 5 that have gone into our 
department

Joe

"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:F7kBd.4386$5g6.2054@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>I don't mean to reopen this old can of worms...
>
> But this is precisely the reason I opted to build the 10 PCs in my
> department. I like our 2 G4s well enough, but not enough to toss them 
> after
> a coupla years for new G5s. The PCs were cheap to build originally, and I
> upgraded them with faster CPUs, HDs and video cards in the past year for
> less than $300/ea.., or about what 2 low end G5s might have put us back. 
> And
> please don't harp on the old saw about how much more productive we'd be 
> with
> more Macs, 'cause we do just fine with our boxy, beige, hideous windoze
> abominations that somehow miraculously manage to do what a Mac can for 
> half
> the price....;-)
>
> Is there any particular reason you need new Macs vs. more PCs?
>
>
>
> "Aandi Inston" <quite@dial.pipex.con> wrote in message
> news:41d5bca9.1334941444@read.news.uk.uu.net...
>> "Joe" <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when
> we
>> >are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>>
>> Ok, why?  If you get faster computers, instead of sitting around
>> waiting for a free computer you'll have more time for productive work.
>>
>> Ok, what will that work be, and how will it help the bottom line?
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
>> Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
>>
>
> 


0
1/1/2005 12:41:38 AM
Allen Wessels wrote:

> In article <rR3Bd.15547$IZ2.6019@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
>  Mike Koewler <wordwiz@fuse.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Accountant: Because we can cut one of those three jobs and still have a 
>>higher profit level.
>>
>>Mike
> 
> 
> So the moral of the story is you can have the faster computers at the 
> expense of a coworker's job.  Luckily their boss seems to be clueless 
> and doesn't mind having people on the payroll sitting around waiting for 
> something to do.

That's life in the big city. Hate to sound cruel, but the boss will get 
the picture in time. If not, his son who takes over the business will.

Mike
> 
> - Allen

0
wordwiz (162)
1/1/2005 4:48:48 AM
Think in terms of a car. You are redlining some employees while lugging
others. With a bit of tweaking we can spread the  work around and let them
all work in a zone that allows creativity and prevent burnout.


"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:301220042224407861%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10
jobs
> > to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with
> > their computers.
> > Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when
we
> > are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>
> Seems to me you not only don't need faster computers, but you're
> overstaffed bythree people.
>
> You haven't answered Money Man's question: If you're getting the work
> out without incurring overtime, what's the problem?


0
1/1/2005 6:34:32 AM
1. Ask Money Man if he would hire 3 new people to come in and do absolutely 
nothing. No sane businessman would say yes.

2. He thinks he's not paying overtime, but he is. In fact, he's probably 
averaging trippletime. It's not hours in the day he should be looking at, 
it's billable hours. If he's paying 5 manhours and billing 2, he's not 
making any money and probably in the red. True ovetime is cheap. Extra 
employees are not, because you are paying extra SS, unemployment, benefits, 
etc.

If he runs the other departments in the same way, it's a wonder that their 
still in business.



"Joe" <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote in message 
news:jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga...
> We have 5 Mac workstations and 3 PC. The Pcs are in good shape the problem 
> is in the Macs. The Macs are 2 dual 1.8 G5's and 3 400 G4's one with OSX 
> and the other two with OS9. I check on our server last week and we had 163 
> live jobs.
> The 163 broke down like this:
> 38 Windows Quark, Pagemaker, Indy
> 6 Something hideous Corel, Publisher, Word
> 9 PDF
> 14 OS 9 Quark5 or below, Pagemaker, or Illustrator 10 or less
> 96 OSX Quark6, Indy CS or other
>
> How do you justify to the man in control of the money upgrading the 
> remaining G4's to G5's with OSX and buying the software when the 
> conversation with him goes like this:
>
> Me: We need to upgrade these remaining G4's
> Money Man: Why?
> Me: They are seriously outdated and will not run the current software we 
> need to use at any reasonable speed.
> Money Man: Why do we need faster computer when we are getting the work out 
> without anyone working overtime?
> Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 
> jobs to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs 
> with their computers.
> Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when 
> we are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
> 



0
1/1/2005 2:46:54 PM
In article <YvrBd.25500$Ff3.15044@trndny04>, Gene Palmiter
<palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote:

>  You are redlining some employees while lugging
> others. 

There's NO OVERTIME being incurred.

How can anyone be in a redline situation if they're coming in, working
normal hours, and going home?

Nope, there are too many people in that shop.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/1/2005 3:36:17 PM
"GSBatchelor" <gsbatchelor@verizon.net> wrote:

>2. He thinks he's not paying overtime, but he is. In fact, he's probably 
>averaging trippletime. It's not hours in the day he should be looking at, 
>it's billable hours. If he's paying 5 manhours and billing 2, he's not 
>making any money and probably in the red. 

Interesting - but conversely he MIGHT be charging this waiting time as
part of billable hours, providing a strong disinentive to provide
anything faster...  unless he is losing on business in the long term
out by billing for hours over industry norms.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.

0
quite (1321)
1/1/2005 3:48:52 PM
Joe writes:

> Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs 
> to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with 
> their computers.
> Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer when we 
> are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?

The money man has a point: If you are getting the work out by deadlines
with the current configuration, you don't need new computers, strictly
speaking.  However, having new computers would allow you to take on more
work while still meeting deadlines ... but in that case you have to show
the money man where the additional work will come from.

The computers have to be paid for, and unless you can show an increase
in revenue or a savings that will result from getting new computers,
there's no real business reason to buy them.  In that case, you just
want new computers because they are cool to have, not because they are a
business necessity.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/1/2005 6:05:45 PM
Allen Wessels writes:

> So the moral of the story is you can have the faster computers at the 
> expense of a coworker's job.

The moral of the story is that you can cut three jobs (the people who
are idle), buy no new computers, and still maintain the current
workload, substantially increasing margins.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/1/2005 6:06:38 PM
Gene Palmiter writes:

> Think in terms of a car. You are redlining some employees while lugging
> others. With a bit of tweaking we can spread the  work around and let them
> all work in a zone that allows creativity and prevent burnout.

You have to show that burnout is a problem, and one that costs money.

Clearly, the redlining employees need faster computers if they are
working at capacity.  The three idle employees can be laid off, which
should provide more than enough money to upgrade the machines of the
better performers.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/1/2005 6:08:20 PM
Dennis Gordon writes:

> But this is precisely the reason I opted to build the 10 PCs in my
> department. I like our 2 G4s well enough, but not enough to toss them after
> a coupla years for new G5s. The PCs were cheap to build originally, and I
> upgraded them with faster CPUs, HDs and video cards in the past year for
> less than $300/ea.., or about what 2 low end G5s might have put us back. And
> please don't harp on the old saw about how much more productive we'd be with
> more Macs, 'cause we do just fine with our boxy, beige, hideous windoze
> abominations that somehow miraculously manage to do what a Mac can for half
> the price....;-)

The only drawback is that a shop needs a computer person to do this,
whereas buying new computers doesn't require an in-house expert.  And
the cost of new computers may well be lower than the salary of an
in-house expert.

But one can buy new PCs just as one can buy new Macs, so this isn't an
argument for or against either.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/1/2005 6:10:52 PM
You're correct, of course. I chose to build the machines because I like the
tinkering and wanted to save some dough. Our IT guy is available on call,
but sometimes it's easier to do it yourself. It certainly isn't required for
me to be the computer guy as production manager. The benefit of using
homebuilts, other than making the maintenance and upgrading easier, is that
I never have to justify an expensive acquisition, because I'm never spending
more than a few hundred for any machine. No red tape. If a machine doesn't
cut it anymore, I can build a brand new box for $600 tops, or drop a few new
components in for half that... and, of course, I put the best parts into my
workstations....;-). Outside of production, when a computer gets outdated,
they buy some cheap $500 Dell piece of dreck which seems like a nice deal
until you actually start using it for a while. Some of these machines are
replaced after only 6 months after they become so packed with spyware and
trojans that they just won't work anymore. So they buy yet another Dell and
give the old one to me to see if I can save it, which I do, but I'd never
use one as a production machine. Now that's a real waste of money. Replacing
a $500 machine every year because they're "cheap" and you're too careless or
ignnorant to maintain it is stupid...


"





>
> The only drawback is that a shop needs a computer person to do this,
> whereas buying new computers doesn't require an in-house expert.  And
> the cost of new computers may well be lower than the salary of an
> in-house expert.
>
> But one can buy new PCs just as one can buy new Macs, so this isn't an
> argument for or against either.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.


0
bixster (175)
1/1/2005 6:43:12 PM
"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> Outside of production, when a computer gets outdated,
>they buy some cheap $500 Dell piece of dreck which seems like a nice deal
>until you actually start using it for a while. Some of these machines are
>replaced after only 6 months after they become so packed with spyware and
>trojans that they just won't work anymore. So they buy yet another Dell...

So, would a $2000 PC be less full of trojans and spyware?

I am alarmed that you would consider running a machine for even one
day if it has trojans on it... sounds as if you need a prevention
policy...
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.

0
quite (1321)
1/1/2005 8:02:54 PM
In article <F7kBd.4386$5g6.2054@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> I don't mean to reopen this old can of worms...
> 
> But this is precisely the reason I opted to build the 10 PCs in my
> department. I like our 2 G4s well enough, but not enough to toss them after
> a coupla years for new G5s. The PCs were cheap to build originally, and I
> upgraded them with faster CPUs, HDs and video cards in the past year for
> less than $300/ea.., or about what 2 low end G5s might have put us back. And
> please don't harp on the old saw about how much more productive we'd be with
> more Macs, 'cause we do just fine with our boxy, beige, hideous windoze
> abominations that somehow miraculously manage to do what a Mac can for half
> the price....;-)
> 
> Is there any particular reason you need new Macs vs. more PCs?

One reason might be that they own full production suites of software for 
the Mac platforms, the price of which makes the difference in hardware 
cost negligible and probably nil considering the existing Mac operator 
expertise.

Most people get longer service out of Macs than 2 years.  And if they do 
want to upgrade, the standard method is to sell the existing one and buy 
new.  Generally Macs have a decent resale value where a do-it-yourself 
kit machine has virtually none.

- Allen
0
awessels1 (257)
1/1/2005 8:25:36 PM
In article <ckpdt01ad54tf7v180jjg1j9u7efkmdnln@4ax.com>,
 Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Allen Wessels writes:
> 
> > So the moral of the story is you can have the faster computers at the 
> > expense of a coworker's job.
> 
> The moral of the story is that you can cut three jobs (the people who
> are idle), buy no new computers, and still maintain the current
> workload, substantially increasing margins.

You've just lost the jobs that the G4s were doing.  They aren't idle all 
the time.  You probably buy one new G5 and move the other two operators 
to other positions or ad a salesperson to generate more volume.

- Allen
0
awessels1 (257)
1/1/2005 8:28:02 PM
In article <yYpBd.17390$IZ2.8200@fe37.usenetserver.com>,
 Mike Koewler <wordwiz@fuse.net> wrote:

> That's life in the big city. Hate to sound cruel, but the boss will get 
> the picture in time. If not, his son who takes over the business will.
> 
> Mike

I've rarely seen the son be able to do better than the father and I've 
been in a lot of shops.

- Allen
0
awessels1 (257)
1/1/2005 8:29:08 PM
Dennis Gordon writes:

> The benefit of using
> homebuilts, other than making the maintenance and upgrading easier, is that
> I never have to justify an expensive acquisition, because I'm never spending
> more than a few hundred for any machine.

I find that building your own machine doesn't necessarily save much
money, but the money you spend goes for exactly what you want, no more
and no less.  In ready-built machines, you typically pay for things you
don't need, and you then have to pay more to buy things that you need
that were not included.

I just build a new server for myself after frustration trying to find a
reseller for a tiny brand-name server that I wanted.  Building one
didn't cost any less, but I did get exactly what I wanted, and I got it
immediately.  Had I been able to buy components at wholesale cost
instead of retail cost, of course, I could have built the box for far
less than a ready-made server would cost.

I also recycled components from a previous machine that were still in
perfect shape, saving additional money.  I salvaged an SCSI adapter, a
network card, the CD-R and DVD drives, the floppy drive, and a disk
drive in this way.  That's also a considerable savings.

> ... of course, I put the best parts into my
> workstations....;-).

That, too.  It's nice to know exactly what kind of components are in
your machine, instead of wondering if they all came from the lowest
bidder.

> Outside of production, when a computer gets outdated,
> they buy some cheap $500 Dell piece of dreck which seems like a nice deal
> until you actually start using it for a while. Some of these machines are
> replaced after only 6 months after they become so packed with spyware and
> trojans that they just won't work anymore. So they buy yet another Dell and
> give the old one to me to see if I can save it, which I do, but I'd never
> use one as a production machine. Now that's a real waste of money. Replacing
> a $500 machine every year because they're "cheap" and you're too careless or
> ignnorant to maintain it is stupid...

There are pluses and minuses.  I'm increasingly leaning towards building
my own machines in the future.  Now if only I could get the parts at
wholesale prices ...

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/1/2005 8:31:29 PM
In article <awessels-F675AE.12290801012005@news.supernews.com>, Allen
Wessels <awessels@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:

> I've rarely seen the son be able to do better than the father and I've 
> been in a lot of shops.

I think in this particular case we're possibly talking about another
SFUP and the best thing the OP can do is look for another job.

OTOH, it's not unknown for line staff to feel hard done by even though
an unbiased look at the operation would reveal that they're the source
of their own discomfort and unhappiness, not management.

In any event, the OP has yet to demonstrate he can answer the question
"if there's no OT going on, and jobs are being completed on time, what
*exactly* is the problem that new computers are going to solve?"

And the question "if jobs are being completed on time and you have
three people frequently sitting idle, why have no layoffs occured?"
0
dave14 (1200)
1/1/2005 9:27:55 PM
>
> I am alarmed that you would consider running a machine for even one
> day if it has trojans on it... sounds as if you need a prevention
> policy...
> ----------------------------------------
> Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com


Nor would I. I should note that the machines under my supervision, all work
daily under heavy loads. The ones I'm talking about are those that belong to
the sales reps and support staff, receptionists and others who surf
suspicious sites, IM, click on suspicious emails, never heard of defragging,
haven't updated their virus definitions in 6 months, and generally ignore
their ever more clogged computers until they are virtually inoperable. Then
they come to me and ask if they can get a new machine. Our creative staff
rarely have those problems... but then they have me close at hand to remind
them of the dangers out there.

We have 60 computers in the company and it only takes one careless clown to
muck things up. Generally things are contained early, but last year we got a
bad case of the Klez right after Christmas. I had to run Symantec's remover
on every machine, and spent weeks afterwards manually removing the infected
files that kept popping up on the servers. Now a prevention policy (as in
STAY OFF THE INTERNET) would help, but we're a newspaper. Email and internet
are essential to our workflow. Our IT guy added the infernal Defanger thingy
to our email server that randomly renders harmless attachments unreadable in
the name of protecting us. Probably causes more problems than it prevents.

So short of an interdiction policy (and given our corporate culture, which
allows babies, children and pets to roam the offices) how are we to keep
ourselves safe all the time? We make our deadlines, we don't lose
productivity. The biggest cost is to my sanity, since I'm the guy they come
running to after they've done something wrong. Perhaps computers shouldn't
be used for entertainment in a business environment, but compared to my
colleagues at other companies who are rigidly restricted in online access, I
prefer our way... even if I pay the price now and again.. at least it makes
me appear more useful ...;-)



0
bixster (175)
1/1/2005 9:47:34 PM
>
> I am alarmed that you would consider running a machine for even one
> day if it has trojans on it... sounds as if you need a prevention
> policy...
> ----------------------------------------
> Aandi Inston  quite@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com


Nor would I. I should note that the machines under my supervision, all work
daily under heavy loads. The ones I'm talking about are those that belong to
the sales reps and support staff, receptionists and others who surf
suspicious sites, IM, click on suspicious emails, never heard of defragging,
haven't updated their virus definitions in 6 months, and generally ignore
their ever more clogged computers until they are virtually inoperable. Then
they come to me and ask if they can get a new machine. Our creative staff
rarely have those problems... but then they have me close at hand to remind
them of the dangers out there.

We have 60 computers in the company and it only takes one careless clown to
muck things up. Generally things are contained early, but last year we got a
bad case of the Klez right after Christmas. I had to run Symantec's remover
on every machine, and spent weeks afterwards manually removing the infected
files that kept popping up on the servers. Now a prevention policy (as in
STAY OFF THE INTERNET) would help, but we're a newspaper. Email and internet
are essential to our workflow. Our IT guy added the infernal Defanger thingy
to our email server that randomly renders harmless attachments unreadable in
the name of protecting us. Probably causes more problems than it prevents.

So short of an interdiction policy (and given our corporate culture, which
allows babies, children and pets to roam the offices) how are we to keep
ourselves safe all the time? We make our deadlines, we don't lose
productivity. The biggest cost is to my sanity, since I'm the guy they come
running to after they've done something wrong. Perhaps computers shouldn't
be used for entertainment in a business environment, but compared to my
colleagues at other companies who are rigidly restricted in online access, I
prefer our way... even if I pay the price now and again.. at least it makes
me appear more useful ...;-)




0
bixster (175)
1/1/2005 9:47:35 PM
Dennis Gordon writes:

> The ones I'm talking about are those that belong to
> the sales reps and support staff, receptionists and others who surf
> suspicious sites, IM, click on suspicious emails, never heard of defragging,
> haven't updated their virus definitions in 6 months, and generally ignore
> their ever more clogged computers until they are virtually inoperable. Then
> they come to me and ask if they can get a new machine.

Can't you just wipe the disk and reinstall?

> Our IT guy added the infernal Defanger thingy
> to our email server that randomly renders harmless attachments unreadable in
> the name of protecting us. Probably causes more problems than it prevents.

That's true of many antivirus products in general, which is why I don't
run them.  They tend to use techniques very similar to those used by
viruses in order to get their hooks into the OS, and sometimes this
causes more trouble than it is worth.

However, when dealing with unsophisticated users, sometimes it's easier
to just install the antivirus stuff, since they can't seem to understand
that clicking on attachments and downloading anything they are asked to
download are risky behaviors.

> Perhaps computers shouldn't
> be used for entertainment in a business environment, but compared to my
> colleagues at other companies who are rigidly restricted in online access, I
> prefer our way... even if I pay the price now and again.. at least it makes
> me appear more useful ...;-)

Just find a technique for wiping and rebuilding a machine rapidly.  Then
you can just reinstall everything in a few minutes if someone complains.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/1/2005 11:19:28 PM
>
> Just find a technique for wiping and rebuilding a machine rapidly.  Then
> you can just reinstall everything in a few minutes if someone complains.
>
That's what I do with the home builts if they become bollixed. I'm a bit
more reluctant to do that with the store boughts because I don't always have
the driver disks available. I'm usually pretty good at tracking drivers
down, but if  I can bring 'em back by zapping the viruses, spyware and a
good defrag, I'd just as soon do that and be done with it...



0
bixster (175)
1/2/2005 1:01:47 AM
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:10:45 GMT, "Dennis Gordon"
<bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

>I don't mean to reopen this old can of worms...
>
>But this is precisely the reason I opted to build the 10 PCs in my
>department. I like our 2 G4s well enough, but not enough to toss them after
>a coupla years for new G5s. The PCs were cheap to build originally, and I
>upgraded them with faster CPUs, HDs and video cards in the past year for
>less than $300/ea.., or about what 2 low end G5s might have put us back. And
>please don't harp on the old saw about how much more productive we'd be with
>more Macs, 'cause we do just fine with our boxy, beige, hideous windoze
>abominations that somehow miraculously manage to do what a Mac can for half
>the price....;-)
>
>Is there any particular reason you need new Macs vs. more PCs?
>
Nice, real-world post. From another viewpoint, I have a 2001-era dual
Pentium III, very tricked out (high-speed HDs, 1.5 gigs of RAM,
top-end Radeon card) for its day, but it looks pokey next to the
latest machines.

But then, I don't run the latest Halo/Half-life/Doom/whatever...it's a
graphics workstation under Windows 2000 Pro.

So when I got an itchy credit card and noticed it's been four years
since I splashed out on state-of-the-art, I realized a couple of
things.

1) The old girl is running fine (if a little loudly) and the biggest
difference in how I work is getting a 19" LCD in 2003...it's the size
that matters on my aging eyeballs.

2) My main client hasn't gone from Pagemaker 6.5 to Indesign CS as per
my recommendations.

3) I can run InDesign CS without problems on the current machine,
although I can't multi-tasking as freely and I would probably hesitate
to burn a CD, download e-mail, batch process in Photoshop and transfer
files to a network box like I do now.

4) PC evolution is at a cross-roads currently and it will be early
2006 before we see which way 64-bit operating systems are going on the
platform, and which processor paths (AMD vs. Intel) are best. I am
thinking the next box will have dual Opterons and 4 gigs of fast RAM,
but I remain to be convinced this is a decision I should make soon or
until I am pushed.

So I will uncharacteristically resist the urge to buy a new computer
unless this old box blows up. As I spec out and build my own, I leave
room for upgrading, but the choices are...confused...at the moment,
and for 90% of even professional applications, a mid-2004 PC is going
to be overkill, never mind what Silicon Valley is shouting about this
week.

The ability of programs and operating systems to fully exploit
hardware is beginning to seriously fall behind. Things like heat and
noise are playing a bigger role than raw power in buying decisions, I
find.

R.
0
rhys (175)
1/2/2005 2:51:15 AM
rhys writes:

> The ability of programs and operating systems to fully exploit
> hardware is beginning to seriously fall behind.

You mean software isn't bloating fast enough to erase gains in hardware
horsepower?  I see that as a _good_ thing; I'm tired of upgrading.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/2/2005 3:49:16 AM
Actually, unless you're really  having production problems,
what you need
is what I call a rotation/upgrade plan. You don't  have to get ALL 
new computers at the same time,
 just set up a
"rollover" plan that allows you to keep up with the requirements
of the newer more complex jobs on newer machines that can handle 
the newer software. Depending on the size of your shop, a 20
percent rollover per year may be adequate.

Upgrading memory and/or harddrives on older machines may 
also be a way to go, and upgrade the operating system as
necessary.

Buying new machines just for the sake of having new machines is
kind of silly. Consider that the monies spent will probably have
to come from your annual raise allocations.

That always puts things in the proper perspective.
0
root2687 (4)
1/2/2005 7:57:43 AM
Finally someone who at least in part gets where I am at.

    I think I should explain better what I meant by "we frequently have 
situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs to do and the other three 
have nothing " We are not over staffed. These people are working 36 hours a 
week but even at that in a five day week one person is not going to have 
anything for half a day on three out of five days. These people are not 
pressured to get jobs out, they have time to completely go threw each job 
they do and do it right the first time. The two of us on the OSX G5's though 
are rode like ragged mules, we do not have time to check anything. Load the 
fonts, link the graphics, hit the print button and hope for the best is all 
we have time to do and if it is wrong being under pressure to get it out and 
not having time to double check your work is not an acceptable excuse.
My full Take on this:
    1) OSX has been out about three years and it is not going away. OS9 work 
will slowly dwindle away to nothing and OSX work will totally take over.
    2)Upgrading the G4's to run OSX is a waste of money. Each machine would 
need at least another 256 of ram and a copy of OSX, about $250. This to 
upgrade a machine not worth much over $300. And this would only let you limp 
by as you would be at the bottom end of system compatibility.
    3)We are not saving money by putting off getting new Mac's. Apple has 
kept the cost of computers betweens $1,800 and $2,400 for the last 7-10 
years. Apple has never dropped their price much they just over time give you 
more computer for the same price.
    So in a nut shell the way I see things you can spend the money now and 
reap the benefits of having better productivity, less rework and higher 
moral or spend the money a year from now and deal with some jobs being 
delayed due to the lack of machines that can do them, deal with higher 
rework due to people not having time to check their work, and deal with 
lower moral as the ones that are snowed under do notice the others surfing 
the internet while they can not catch a break. Either way the company is 
going to spend about the same amount of money on computers and software.
    My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the 
work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
Joe

"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:YvrBd.25500$Ff3.15044@trndny04...
> Think in terms of a car. You are redlining some employees while lugging
> others. With a bit of tweaking we can spread the  work around and let them
> all work in a zone that allows creativity and prevent burnout.
>
>
> "Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
> news:301220042224407861%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
>> In article <jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10
> jobs
>> > to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with
>> > their computers.
>> > Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer 
>> > when
> we
>> > are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>>
>> Seems to me you not only don't need faster computers, but you're
>> overstaffed bythree people.
>>
>> You haven't answered Money Man's question: If you're getting the work
>> out without incurring overtime, what's the problem?
>
> 


0
1/3/2005 12:59:42 AM
 >> My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the
work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?

And the answer is????

Mike

Joe wrote:

> Finally someone who at least in part gets where I am at.
> 
>     I think I should explain better what I meant by "we frequently have 
> situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs to do and the other three 
> have nothing " We are not over staffed. These people are working 36 hours a 
> week but even at that in a five day week one person is not going to have 
> anything for half a day on three out of five days. These people are not 
> pressured to get jobs out, they have time to completely go threw each job 
> they do and do it right the first time. The two of us on the OSX G5's though 
> are rode like ragged mules, we do not have time to check anything. Load the 
> fonts, link the graphics, hit the print button and hope for the best is all 
> we have time to do and if it is wrong being under pressure to get it out and 
> not having time to double check your work is not an acceptable excuse.
> My full Take on this:
>     1) OSX has been out about three years and it is not going away. OS9 work 
> will slowly dwindle away to nothing and OSX work will totally take over.
>     2)Upgrading the G4's to run OSX is a waste of money. Each machine would 
> need at least another 256 of ram and a copy of OSX, about $250. This to 
> upgrade a machine not worth much over $300. And this would only let you limp 
> by as you would be at the bottom end of system compatibility.
>     3)We are not saving money by putting off getting new Mac's. Apple has 
> kept the cost of computers betweens $1,800 and $2,400 for the last 7-10 
> years. Apple has never dropped their price much they just over time give you 
> more computer for the same price.
>     So in a nut shell the way I see things you can spend the money now and 
> reap the benefits of having better productivity, less rework and higher 
> moral or spend the money a year from now and deal with some jobs being 
> delayed due to the lack of machines that can do them, deal with higher 
> rework due to people not having time to check their work, and deal with 
> lower moral as the ones that are snowed under do notice the others surfing 
> the internet while they can not catch a break. Either way the company is 
> going to spend about the same amount of money on computers and software.
>     My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the 
> work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
> Joe
> 
> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:YvrBd.25500$Ff3.15044@trndny04...
> 
>>Think in terms of a car. You are redlining some employees while lugging
>>others. With a bit of tweaking we can spread the  work around and let them
>>all work in a zone that allows creativity and prevent burnout.
>>
>>
>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>news:301220042224407861%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
>>
>>>In article <jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10
>>
>>jobs
>>
>>>>to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with
>>>>their computers.
>>>>Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer 
>>>>when
>>
>>we
>>
>>>>are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>>>
>>>Seems to me you not only don't need faster computers, but you're
>>>overstaffed bythree people.
>>>
>>>You haven't answered Money Man's question: If you're getting the work
>>>out without incurring overtime, what's the problem?
>>
>>
> 
> 

0
wordwiz (162)
1/3/2005 1:48:33 AM
"Joe" <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote in news:rX0Cd.47823$nz5.4464@fe06.lga:

<Snip>

>     My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting
>     the 
> work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
> Joe
> 

You need to change your approach to the Money Man.

Prepare a report explaining how the industry is in a constant state of 
evolution, detail the costs that you assess you should be incurring 
anually  for upgrades of hardware and software.

Show the tax benefits of leasing new equipment balanced against the cost 
of maintaining old equipment.

Explain the overall improvement in productivity to be gained from these 
upgrades.

Arrange a meeting with Money Man to go through the report and to 
negotiate an annual budget for your department.

When you have the meeting, get the budget in writing and negotiate to 
have autonomy in the spending of this budget, this way, you won't have to 
go back to Money Man to justify every expense so long as you don't exceed 
the budget.

At the end of the financial year, prove to Money Man that you have 
improved profitability and then negotiate for spending on major items 
(new Rip, proofing devices, platesetter etc) as well as revised budget 
for the following year.

Regards

Mike

0
1/3/2005 2:00:33 AM
Mike let me ask you something. If you owned the company and it was your 
money would you buy the computers? If I owned the company and it was my 
money the computers would already be here. I understand the logics of why 
and believe with every bone in my body it is the best thing to do from a 
business stand point.

Joe

"Mike Koewler" <wordwiz@fuse.net> wrote in message 
news:Qv1Cd.904$7k5.47@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> >> My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the
> work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
>
> And the answer is????
>
> Mike
>
> Joe wrote:
>
>> Finally someone who at least in part gets where I am at.
>>
>>     I think I should explain better what I meant by "we frequently have 
>> situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs to do and the other 
>> three have nothing " We are not over staffed. These people are working 36 
>> hours a week but even at that in a five day week one person is not going 
>> to have anything for half a day on three out of five days. These people 
>> are not pressured to get jobs out, they have time to completely go threw 
>> each job they do and do it right the first time. The two of us on the OSX 
>> G5's though are rode like ragged mules, we do not have time to check 
>> anything. Load the fonts, link the graphics, hit the print button and 
>> hope for the best is all we have time to do and if it is wrong being 
>> under pressure to get it out and not having time to double check your 
>> work is not an acceptable excuse.
>> My full Take on this:
>>     1) OSX has been out about three years and it is not going away. OS9 
>> work will slowly dwindle away to nothing and OSX work will totally take 
>> over.
>>     2)Upgrading the G4's to run OSX is a waste of money. Each machine 
>> would need at least another 256 of ram and a copy of OSX, about $250. 
>> This to upgrade a machine not worth much over $300. And this would only 
>> let you limp by as you would be at the bottom end of system 
>> compatibility.
>>     3)We are not saving money by putting off getting new Mac's. Apple has 
>> kept the cost of computers betweens $1,800 and $2,400 for the last 7-10 
>> years. Apple has never dropped their price much they just over time give 
>> you more computer for the same price.
>>     So in a nut shell the way I see things you can spend the money now 
>> and reap the benefits of having better productivity, less rework and 
>> higher moral or spend the money a year from now and deal with some jobs 
>> being delayed due to the lack of machines that can do them, deal with 
>> higher rework due to people not having time to check their work, and deal 
>> with lower moral as the ones that are snowed under do notice the others 
>> surfing the internet while they can not catch a break. Either way the 
>> company is going to spend about the same amount of money on computers and 
>> software.
>>     My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the 
>> work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
>> Joe
>>
>> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>> news:YvrBd.25500$Ff3.15044@trndny04...
>>
>>>Think in terms of a car. You are redlining some employees while lugging
>>>others. With a bit of tweaking we can spread the  work around and let 
>>>them
>>>all work in a zone that allows creativity and prevent burnout.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:301220042224407861%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
>>>
>>>>In article <jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10
>>>
>>>jobs
>>>
>>>>>to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with
>>>>>their computers.
>>>>>Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer 
>>>>>when
>>>
>>>we
>>>
>>>>>are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>>>>
>>>>Seems to me you not only don't need faster computers, but you're
>>>>overstaffed bythree people.
>>>>
>>>>You haven't answered Money Man's question: If you're getting the work
>>>>out without incurring overtime, what's the problem?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 


0
1/3/2005 2:01:50 AM
Joe,

Honestly, no, I wouldn't. And I do own a company, though one that isn't 
as big as the one you work for. Ironically, it is a newspaper, but a 
weekly and not a daily. If it ain't broke, I'm not going to fix it. And 
if it doesn't need updating to do its job, I'm going to let it ride.

Mike

Joe wrote:

> Mike let me ask you something. If you owned the company and it was your 
> money would you buy the computers? If I owned the company and it was my 
> money the computers would already be here. I understand the logics of why 
> and believe with every bone in my body it is the best thing to do from a 
> business stand point.
> 
> Joe
> 
> "Mike Koewler" <wordwiz@fuse.net> wrote in message 
> news:Qv1Cd.904$7k5.47@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> 
>>>>My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the
>>
>>work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
>>
>>And the answer is????
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>Joe wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Finally someone who at least in part gets where I am at.
>>>
>>>    I think I should explain better what I meant by "we frequently have 
>>>situations where 2 of five people have 6-10 jobs to do and the other 
>>>three have nothing " We are not over staffed. These people are working 36 
>>>hours a week but even at that in a five day week one person is not going 
>>>to have anything for half a day on three out of five days. These people 
>>>are not pressured to get jobs out, they have time to completely go threw 
>>>each job they do and do it right the first time. The two of us on the OSX 
>>>G5's though are rode like ragged mules, we do not have time to check 
>>>anything. Load the fonts, link the graphics, hit the print button and 
>>>hope for the best is all we have time to do and if it is wrong being 
>>>under pressure to get it out and not having time to double check your 
>>>work is not an acceptable excuse.
>>>My full Take on this:
>>>    1) OSX has been out about three years and it is not going away. OS9 
>>>work will slowly dwindle away to nothing and OSX work will totally take 
>>>over.
>>>    2)Upgrading the G4's to run OSX is a waste of money. Each machine 
>>>would need at least another 256 of ram and a copy of OSX, about $250. 
>>>This to upgrade a machine not worth much over $300. And this would only 
>>>let you limp by as you would be at the bottom end of system 
>>>compatibility.
>>>    3)We are not saving money by putting off getting new Mac's. Apple has 
>>>kept the cost of computers betweens $1,800 and $2,400 for the last 7-10 
>>>years. Apple has never dropped their price much they just over time give 
>>>you more computer for the same price.
>>>    So in a nut shell the way I see things you can spend the money now 
>>>and reap the benefits of having better productivity, less rework and 
>>>higher moral or spend the money a year from now and deal with some jobs 
>>>being delayed due to the lack of machines that can do them, deal with 
>>>higher rework due to people not having time to check their work, and deal 
>>>with lower moral as the ones that are snowed under do notice the others 
>>>surfing the internet while they can not catch a break. Either way the 
>>>company is going to spend about the same amount of money on computers and 
>>>software.
>>>    My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the 
>>>work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?
>>>Joe
>>>
>>>"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>>>news:YvrBd.25500$Ff3.15044@trndny04...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Think in terms of a car. You are redlining some employees while lugging
>>>>others. With a bit of tweaking we can spread the  work around and let 
>>>>them
>>>>all work in a zone that allows creativity and prevent burnout.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
>>>>news:301220042224407861%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>In article <jT3Bd.44382$YF2.15699@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Me: Well we frequently have situations where 2 of five people have 6-10
>>>>
>>>>jobs
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>to do and the other three have nothing as they can not do the jobs with
>>>>>>their computers.
>>>>>>Money Man: Ok but I still do not see Why do we need faster computer 
>>>>>>when
>>>>
>>>>we
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>are getting the work out without anyone working overtime?
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems to me you not only don't need faster computers, but you're
>>>>>overstaffed bythree people.
>>>>>
>>>>>You haven't answered Money Man's question: If you're getting the work
>>>>>out without incurring overtime, what's the problem?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> 
> 

0
wordwiz (162)
1/3/2005 2:27:39 AM
In article <GR1Cd.47853$9c6.21788@fe06.lga>, Joe <notgiven@bogus.com>
wrote:

> Mike let me ask you something. If you owned the company and it was your 
> money would you buy the computers? If I owned the company and it was my 
> money the computers would already be here. I understand the logics of why 
> and believe with every bone in my body it is the best thing to do from a 
> business stand point.

Until you answer the question as to why they are required when the work
is getting out on time and no OT is being incurred, I would not spend a
dime on new hardware.

If you believe it, back it up with facts and numbers. If you can't back
it up, your belief is irrelevant.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/3/2005 2:37:12 AM
Joe writes:

>     3)We are not saving money by putting off getting new Mac's. Apple has 
> kept the cost of computers betweens $1,800 and $2,400 for the last 7-10 
> years. Apple has never dropped their price much they just over time give you 
> more computer for the same price.

I suppose I'll be flamed for pointing this out, but you could buy
several PCs for the price of a single Mac.  I just built a nice server
for less than half the price of a low-end Mac.

> My problem is no matter what I say we go back to: We are getting the 
> work out without anyone working overtime aren't we?

Well, that _is_ the bottom line.  That's all most businesses care about.
There's the question of employee moral, sure, but most places don't care
about employee moral.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/3/2005 4:36:16 AM
In article <0riht0dlsjk4aopp6umdnpbq9mau3vovtl@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I suppose I'll be flamed for pointing this out, but you could buy
> several PCs for the price of a single Mac.  I just built a nice server
> for less than half the price of a low-end Mac.

That's not relevant to the OP's original problem. He has more work
coming in on the Mac platform than Windows:

> The 163 broke down like this:
> 38 Windows Quark, Pagemaker, Indy
> 6 Something hideous Corel, Publisher, Word
> 9 PDF
> 14 OS 9 Quark5 or below, Pagemaker, or Illustrator 10 or less
> 96 OSX Quark6, Indy CS or other

Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
boxes?
0
dave14 (1200)
1/3/2005 4:51:20 AM
Dave Balderstone writes:

> Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
> boxes?

Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/3/2005 5:15:44 AM
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in 
news:l6lht0p2fvnmv3ojkb6dg7li6a0sea11er@4ax.com:


> 
>> Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
>> boxes?
> 
> Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
> a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.
> 

One of the elementary rules of Prepress

ALWAYS PROCESS CUSTOMERS FILES USING THE SAME PROGRAM AND PLATFORM THE 
CUSTOMER USED


Regards

Mike
0
1/3/2005 6:12:04 AM
On 1/2/05 11:15 PM, "Mxsmanic" wrote:

> Dave Balderstone writes:
> 
>> Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
>> boxes?
> 
> Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
> a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.

From a prepress perspective, that makes absolutely no sense at all. You
can't process Mac jobs in Windows. Yikes! What're you thinking?

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
1/3/2005 11:25:11 AM
>
> From a prepress perspective, that makes absolutely no sense at all. You
> can't process Mac jobs in Windows. Yikes! What're you thinking?
>
> Tim
>
Well that's not strictly true. Illustrator and Corel Draw files with fonts
as outlines; Quark and InDesign files using OTF or common typefaces
generally do quite well cross-platform (not that I'd trust a long book with
many linked text boxes to flow exactly the same); and, of course, moving
clients into a properly prepared PDF workflow can make platform issues
nearly irrelevant...



0
bixster (175)
1/3/2005 12:25:59 PM
In article <l6lht0p2fvnmv3ojkb6dg7li6a0sea11er@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
> a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.

I'm glad you aren't processing any of my files.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/3/2005 12:52:54 PM
On 1/3/05 6:25 AM, in article "Dennis Gordon" wrote:

>> 
>> From a prepress perspective, that makes absolutely no sense at all. You
>> can't process Mac jobs in Windows. Yikes! What're you thinking?
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
> Well that's not strictly true. Illustrator and Corel Draw files with fonts
> as outlines; Quark and InDesign files using OTF or common typefaces
> generally do quite well cross-platform (not that I'd trust a long book with
> many linked text boxes to flow exactly the same); and, of course, moving
> clients into a properly prepared PDF workflow can make platform issues
> nearly irrelevant...
> 

Sure there can be special circumstances that make platform less relevant,
but I don't think that's what's being discussed. I get the impression the OP
is talking about a general prepress workstation (or two, or three or more).
From a _general_ prepress perspective, platform is incredibly relevant!

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
1/3/2005 1:15:25 PM
Mike Powell writes:

> ALWAYS PROCESS CUSTOMERS FILES USING THE SAME PROGRAM AND PLATFORM THE 
> CUSTOMER USED

Well, 95% of the world is using PCs.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/3/2005 6:55:26 PM
Tim Monk writes:

> From a prepress perspective, that makes absolutely no sense at all. You
> can't process Mac jobs in Windows.

So what do you do when you receive Windows jobs?  I can't believe that
everyone in the world with a need for the services of a printer is using
a Mac.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/3/2005 6:56:17 PM
Dave Balderstone writes:

> I'm glad you aren't processing any of my files.

Why?  What matters is results, not the equipment used to obtain them,
from the customer's viewpoint.  A customer who insists on his
contractors using PCs or Macs has a religious hang-up, not a legitimate
issue.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/3/2005 6:58:51 PM
In article <ld5jt019r03tb3aopobkse16dtf1e4j03l@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Why?  What matters is results, not the equipment used to obtain them,
> from the customer's viewpoint.  A customer who insists on his
> contractors using PCs or Macs has a religious hang-up, not a legitimate
> issue.

Because your "cheapest is best" attitude suggests that I'd do better
elsewhere.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/3/2005 7:10:24 PM
I think the talent of the operator trumps the cost of equipment any day. I 
take some pride in our cheap as dirt PCs that, while I might not want to run 
KOTOR or whatever the latest game is, crank out hundreds of pages a week 
with nary a hiccup, going to newsprint, glossies, flyers, whatever. If you 
know how to use your equipment, it doesn't matter if the tools themselves 
are unattractive. This isn't a slam at the Mac users out there. I enjoy 
working on our G4s and think OSX (with some tweaking) is an elegant OS. But 
If I had a $5,000 budget for hardware and that could buy me 2 G5s or 8 PCs 
for 8 people, I'm gonna go the cheapest route, and the final quality will 
not suffer....

We're a newspaper design dept. We've been making our pages on PCs and 
sending the PDFs to various printers for the past 3 years. They all output 
from Macs. Their Macs don't care where the PDFs came from.

I have a friend, who is no longer in the business, who several years ago 
spent $10,000 for a Centris, scanner and software. The hardware was made 
obsolete within 6 months (this was when Apple seemed to be coming out with 
new models every other week). He couldn't afford to upgrade and got out of 
the business. With the power of even the cheapest processors out there being 
so great, I'd never want to spend myself into bankruptcy trying to keep up 
with the shiniest bauble on the tech beach, especially when the customer 
cares only about results not the logo on the box. If you can afford the 
best, go for it, but sheer cost shouldn't prohibit a company from doing 
business these days.


"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message 
news:030120051310241852%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <ld5jt019r03tb3aopobkse16dtf1e4j03l@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why?  What matters is results, not the equipment used to obtain them,
>> from the customer's viewpoint.  A customer who insists on his
>> contractors using PCs or Macs has a religious hang-up, not a legitimate
>> issue.
>
> Because your "cheapest is best" attitude suggests that I'd do better
> elsewhere. 


0
bixster (175)
1/3/2005 9:32:41 PM
In article <ZRiCd.4136$Vj3.1081@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> We're a newspaper design dept.

So are we...
0
dave14 (1200)
1/3/2005 9:52:14 PM
On 1/3/05 12:56 PM, "Mxsmanic" wrote:

> So what do you do when you receive Windows jobs?

Preflight and process them on a Windows machine. Where I work we each have a
Mac and a PC on our desks, so it's just a matter of rolling from one machine
to another.

> I can't believe that everyone in the world with a need for the services of a
> printer is using a Mac.

No, of course not. But there _are_ more Macs being used, at least in my
area. The majority of files we receive are Mac/Quark, with InDesign slowly
catching up.

Tim

0
tmonk1 (342)
1/4/2005 12:09:16 AM

> I think the talent of the operator trumps the cost of equipment any day. I
> take some pride in our cheap as dirt PCs that, while I might not want to
run
> KOTOR or whatever the latest game is, crank out hundreds of pages a week
> with nary a hiccup, going to newsprint, glossies, flyers, whatever. If you
> know how to use your equipment, it doesn't matter if the tools themselves
> are unattractive. This isn't a slam at the Mac users out there. I enjoy
> working on our G4s and think OSX (with some tweaking) is an elegant OS.
But
> If I had a $5,000 budget for hardware and that could buy me 2 G5s or 8 PCs
> for 8 people, I'm gonna go the cheapest route, and the final quality will
> not suffer....

As Allen pointed out earlier the PC resale will be nil while the Macs would
be signaficant. Also the upkeep on PCs is more considering spyware these
days. I work on both and have built plenty of PCs. For the price I think it
is a wash with everything considered.
>
> We're a newspaper design dept. We've been making our pages on PCs and
> sending the PDFs to various printers for the past 3 years. They all output
> from Macs. Their Macs don't care where the PDFs came from.

What works for you stay with it. There using Macs so it must be working for
them also.
>
> I have a friend, who is no longer in the business, who several years ago
> spent $10,000 for a Centris, scanner and software. The hardware was made
> obsolete within 6 months (this was when Apple seemed to be coming out with
> new models every other week). He couldn't afford to upgrade and got out of
> the business. With the power of even the cheapest processors out there
being
> so great, I'd never want to spend myself into bankruptcy trying to keep up
> with the shiniest bauble on the tech beach, especially when the customer
> cares only about results not the logo on the box. If you can afford the
> best, go for it, but sheer cost shouldn't prohibit a company from doing
> business these days.
>
Could he still scan? Of course he could. I am sure there were other reasons
he went out of business. I still scan on a G4 with a C-550 attached to it. I
do fine.

Ted


0
tjpolite (192)
1/4/2005 12:45:37 AM
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ld5jt019r03tb3aopobkse16dtf1e4j03l@4ax.com...
> Dave Balderstone writes:
>
>> I'm glad you aren't processing any of my files.
>
> Why?  What matters is results, not the equipment used to obtain them,
> from the customer's viewpoint.  A customer who insists on his
> contractors using PCs or Macs has a religious hang-up, not a legitimate
> issue.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I'm a designer using PC exclusively for the last 20 years. I would hope that 
the printer I took files to would use the platform the files came from. That 
would be true if I were using a Mac, too. It's just good practice, IME. I 
submit PDFs now, but I also send along my native files - and it's saved my 
bacon more than once! I wouldn't use a printer who only had Macs or only had 
PCs; it seems to me it shows a lack of preparedness.

Absolutely results matter; good results are obtained with proper equipment, 
not the cheapest equipment. I own almost every application used for design, 
because I get a variety of files from many sources. I also own a Mac, 
although I prefer my PC. I pride myself on being able to open any file. Why 
would I expect any less from my printers?

It's not a religious hang-up, and you're incredibly naive if you think 
platform never matters. The OP said most jobs came from Macs; so obviously 
he needs to meet his customers' demands, not some ivory tower longed-for 
eutopia where he gets to dictate how files will be prepared.
 


0
peggy9906 (219)
1/4/2005 12:57:53 AM
In article <ZRiCd.4136$Vj3.1081@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
 "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> If you 
> know how to use your equipment, it doesn't matter if the tools themselves 
> are unattractive.

man, there was never written a better description of Ron Jeremy.

0
elmop (1209)
1/4/2005 1:01:56 AM
Now that's comedy...

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in message 
news:elmop-705FC8.20015603012005@text.usenetserver.com...
> In article <ZRiCd.4136$Vj3.1081@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>,
> "Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>> If you
>> know how to use your equipment, it doesn't matter if the tools themselves
>> are unattractive.
>
> man, there was never written a better description of Ron Jeremy.
> 


0
bixster (175)
1/4/2005 1:07:53 AM
> As Allen pointed out earlier the PC resale will be nil while the Macs 
> would
> be signaficant. Also the upkeep on PCs is more considering spyware these
> days. I work on both and have built plenty of PCs. For the price I think 
> it
> is a wash with everything considered.
>>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=14912&item=5740960816&rd=1
This is the same machine as our older G4. I bid $400 on it. I'll be curious 
to see how much higher it goes.

We don't resell our PCs. We move them down the food chain to other 
departments that don't require as much performance as production. After 3 or 
4 years we strip the worst machines for drives, memory, power supllies, etc. 
and dispose of the carcasses. The spyware/virus issue is always a problem on 
PCs (see my other posts in this thread), but knowledge is the cure. When a 
user finally figures out that he can do something to prevent his machine 
from being rendered useless before he comes crying to me those problems are 
over. My production dept. is a good example. The machines here rarely have 
spyware/virus issues, because my staff believes me when I tell them it's 
necessary to keep their antivirus and adaware updated and running each week. 
It's further down the chain where the problems occur, and I really don't 
care if the receptionist's computer is too slow to get her on the internet 
so she can surf more useless "cute" web sites. The casual, ignorant PC users 
get what they deserve....
>



> Could he still scan? Of course he could. I am sure there were other 
> reasons
> he went out of business. I still scan on a G4 with a C-550 attached to it. 
> I
> do fine.
>
> Ted

I should have been more clear. Sorry. Of course his scanner worked. My point 
was that he spent a lot of dough on his Mac to get it tricked out, and 
within months he needed more expensive upgrades to stay competitive, and the 
work just didn't justify it. Obviously the ambition was lacking, but being 
caught in an expensive upgrade loop (and man, were those Macs expensive back 
then) can be a killer


Dennis


0
bixster (175)
1/4/2005 1:33:15 AM
In article <e85jt09tdlndg1p7fq4vgc7bp9nvkd54bt@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic 
wrote:

> Mike Powell writes:
> 
>> ALWAYS PROCESS CUSTOMERS FILES USING THE SAME PROGRAM AND PLATFORM
>> THE CUSTOMER USED

> Well, 95% of the world is using PCs.

But a much smaller percentage of the people preparing work for 
commercial printing are.

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
1/4/2005 3:43:01 AM
Peggy writes:

> I'm a designer using PC exclusively for the last 20 years. I would hope that 
> the printer I took files to would use the platform the files came from. 

No printer can afford to accommodate every platform his customers might
be using.  Fortunately, there is some degree of cross-platform
compatibility for many file formats, and platforms other than Mac and PC
are rare.

PDFs in particular should be platform-independent.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/4/2005 4:17:39 AM
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in 
news:e85jt09tdlndg1p7fq4vgc7bp9nvkd54bt@4ax.com:

> Mike Powell writes:
> 
>> ALWAYS PROCESS CUSTOMERS FILES USING THE SAME PROGRAM AND PLATFORM THE 
>> CUSTOMER USED
> 
> Well, 95% of the world is using PCs.
> 

At least 80% of our work originated on Macs

Regards

Mike
0
1/4/2005 9:50:52 AM
>
> > Mike Powell writes:
> >
> >> ALWAYS PROCESS CUSTOMERS FILES USING THE SAME PROGRAM AND PLATFORM
THE
> >> CUSTOMER USED
> >
> > Well, 95% of the world is using PCs.
> >
>
> At least 80% of our work originated on Macs
>
Ours is at 90% work originated from Macs. 80% of that is in Quark
still. InDesign is creeping up more every month.

Ted

0
cann (336)
1/4/2005 1:50:02 PM
It went for $456.43 U.S. dollars, not bad for a 400mhz comoputer.
Anyway I have to babysit my PCs way more than my Macs that sometimes I
just want to throw the PCs out the window. Microsofty just blows when
it comes to security etc. Everytime I turn on my Win XP pro computer
there is another security update to download. I guess that happens to
all OSs but aren't we all tired of this crap? I am tired on both
plateforms of all the upgrading etc. I need to get work done not
upgrade etc. It is getting worse every month.

Ted

0
cann (336)
1/4/2005 2:48:05 PM
We almost never get native files anymore. 90% of our incoming client files 
are PDFs...



"Ted" <cann@dca.net> wrote in message 
news:1104846602.746616.212300@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> > Mike Powell writes:
>> >
>> >> ALWAYS PROCESS CUSTOMERS FILES USING THE SAME PROGRAM AND PLATFORM
> THE
>> >> CUSTOMER USED
>> >
>> > Well, 95% of the world is using PCs.
>> >
>>
>> At least 80% of our work originated on Macs
>>
> Ours is at 90% work originated from Macs. 80% of that is in Quark
> still. InDesign is creeping up more every month.
>
> Ted
> 


0
bixster (175)
1/4/2005 3:39:26 PM
Many of our clients want to many changes to send PDFs. Also the usual
problems crop up like folds are wrong, colors are wrong etc.

Ted

0
cann (336)
1/4/2005 5:03:28 PM
I can't help mechanical issues, but as far as color issues go, I still 
highly recommend Quite a Box of Tricks as an inexpensive, nearly foolproof 
means of smoothing out PDF color problems...



"Ted" <cann@dca.net> wrote in message 
news:1104855954.106271.219670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Many of our clients want to many changes to send PDFs. Also the usual
> problems crop up like folds are wrong, colors are wrong etc.
>
> Ted
> 


0
bixster (175)
1/4/2005 5:39:08 PM
Dennis Gordon wrote:
> I can't help mechanical issues, but as far as color issues go, I
still
> highly recommend Quite a Box of Tricks as an inexpensive, nearly
foolproof
> means of smoothing out PDF color problems...
I use Pitstop, love it.

Ted

0
cann (336)
1/4/2005 5:59:29 PM
Yeah Pitstop is cool, but it's way more than what we need. I like QABOT 
because it focuses on a few essential processes, is easy to configure and 
the price is half that of Pitsop...



>> means of smoothing out PDF color problems...
> I use Pitstop, love it.
>
> Ted
> 


0
bixster (175)
1/4/2005 6:46:21 PM
Can I ask in what capacity you work within the printing business or if you 
do? This comment you have made and stood behind shows you have a very 
limited knowledge of what goes on in most commercial printing prepress 
departments and are commenting on things you are pretty clueless about. I do 
not feel like doing the amount of typing it would take to list all the 
problems that would occur if you tried to convert Mac files to PC on a 
regular basis to say nothing of the tremendous amount of time that would be 
involved. Unbelievable!

Joe


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:l6lht0p2fvnmv3ojkb6dg7li6a0sea11er@4ax.com...
> Dave Balderstone writes:
>
>> Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
>> boxes?
>
> Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
> a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. 


0
1/4/2005 11:51:07 PM
Joe wrote:

> Can I ask in what capacity you work within the printing business or if you 
> do? This comment you have made and stood behind shows you have a very 
> limited knowledge of what goes on in most commercial printing prepress 
> departments and are commenting on things you are pretty clueless about. I do 
> not feel like doing the amount of typing it would take to list all the 
> problems that would occur if you tried to convert Mac files to PC on a 
> regular basis to say nothing of the tremendous amount of time that would be 
> involved. Unbelievable!
> 
> Joe
> 
> 
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:l6lht0p2fvnmv3ojkb6dg7li6a0sea11er@4ax.com...
> 
>>Dave Balderstone writes:
>>
>>
>>>Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
>>>boxes?
>>
>>Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
>>a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.
>>
>>-- 
>>Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly. 
> 
> 
> 
Joe,

I must be lucky. I have a customer who sends me 4-6 Quark 4 files 
created on a Mac every week. I have Quark 5 on a PC. Once every three 
weeks or so, I have to adjust a text frame because a word or so has gone 
out of bounds. I can live with this.

Mike

0
wordwiz (162)
1/5/2005 1:47:25 AM
In my experience, the cross platform as well as cross application conversion
has gotten *much* better.

This happened last month:

A woman in Texas wrote on the InDesign listserver that she had a brochure of
8 or 16 pages (I forget which) that had come to her as a Mac QXP6 file. She
wanted to open it in InDesign (also on the Mac I believe), but she had no
means of resaving the file down to a QXP 4.1 file. I offered to try it for
her, so she placed the 80 meg document on our FTP. I opened it on my PC in
QXP6, resaved to v5... opened that on the G4 in QXP5... resaved down to v4
and then opened the document in IDCS on my PC and resaved as an Indy
document. The brochure had lots of linked text, captions, color pics,
runarounds etc. I forget what the fonts were, but both platforms recognized
most of them (I was careful not to replace any while opening). The end
result Indy doc was *remarkably* coherent. The only problem we had is that
she couldn't open the ID doc until I stuffed it before placing it back on
the FTP. Score one for technology I guess..

We regularly go between platforms except in those cases where there simply
are no equivalent fonts. If the client has provided a hard copy or PDF proof
and used common font families, it is not that big a deal. Since we have 10
PCs to 2 Macs, and paginate with PCs, it's often easier to bring the file
over to the PC. Obviously, if some bizarro font is involved, you don't want
to do that; and there is the problem that crops up with Mac EPS without
headers that I'll resave with previews on the PC for convenience.

It's not something you necessarily want to do all the time, but if you know
what you're doing, it's hardly the this dreadful ohmygodwhatishappening
scenario that some people paint. I still believe that the talent (or lack
thereof) of the operator is more important than the hardware. Not always....
but more often than not.

Dennis


"Mike Koewler" <wordwiz@fuse.net> wrote in message
news:LGHCd.1303$7k5.583@fe37.usenetserver.com...
> Joe wrote:
>
> > Can I ask in what capacity you work within the printing business or if
you
> > do? This comment you have made and stood behind shows you have a very
> > limited knowledge of what goes on in most commercial printing prepress
> > departments and are commenting on things you are pretty clueless about.
I do
> > not feel like doing the amount of typing it would take to list all the
> > problems that would occur if you tried to convert Mac files to PC on a
> > regular basis to say nothing of the tremendous amount of time that would
be
> > involved. Unbelievable!
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:l6lht0p2fvnmv3ojkb6dg7li6a0sea11er@4ax.com...
> >
> >>Dave Balderstone writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
> >>>boxes?
> >>
> >>Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
> >>a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.
> >>
> >>-- 
> >>Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
> >
> >
> >
> Joe,
>
> I must be lucky. I have a customer who sends me 4-6 Quark 4 files
> created on a Mac every week. I have Quark 5 on a PC. Once every three
> weeks or so, I have to adjust a text frame because a word or so has gone
> out of bounds. I can live with this.
>
> Mike
>


0
bixster (175)
1/5/2005 2:25:06 AM
In article <6eICd.4602$Vj3.2559@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> In my experience, the cross platform as well as cross application conversion
> has gotten *much* better.

That's true, but look at it this way:

Let's say you can put a Windows box in your shop for $500 cheaper than
an equivalent Mac. (I don't necessarily believe that, but we'll
postulate it for the sake of this argument).

Let's say you are aiming for a billable hour rate of $50. (arbitrarily
low, no doubt, but let's just postulate that as well.)

So, if you have to spend just 10 (potentially) billable hours over the
course of x time (let's say a year... That's 12 minutes a WEEK, BTW)
converting the Mac jobs that flow through your shop to Windows, dealing
with font substitution, image shifts, text reflow... you have saved
exactly how much money by going with the "cheaper" platform?

Zero.

Now, what if your billable rate is $75/hour? $100/hour?

What's your depreciation rate on capital equipment? Two years? Three?

Oh yeah, you sure saved money on that PC.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/5/2005 3:25:43 AM
Absolutely true if we were a service bureau and time was money, but we're a
newspaper. Our clients pay the same rate whether they make the ad or we do
(something that I'm not fond of, but it's a sales advantage). We handle
every format there is from agencies to the ma and pa operations who send
Word and Powerpoint documents. Reworking some crappy Publisher document
that's the wrong size into a workable, compatible file is a lot more
aggravating than opening a Mac file on the PC and massaging it so we can
easily put it on a page. Remember, most of the Mac files are being made into
PDFs to be placed onto pages. Only about 20% of our incoming files are
native anyways, so we're talking about a few files a week that we choose to
bring over rather than distill directly. All I'm saying is that the process
works pretty good these days. I certainly wouldn't want to be converting
files across platforms all day if I was having to bill the time
competitively.


"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:040120052125431375%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <6eICd.4602$Vj3.2559@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
> Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > In my experience, the cross platform as well as cross application
conversion
> > has gotten *much* better.
>
> That's true, but look at it this way:
>
> Let's say you can put a Windows box in your shop for $500 cheaper than
> an equivalent Mac. (I don't necessarily believe that, but we'll
> postulate it for the sake of this argument).
>
> Let's say you are aiming for a billable hour rate of $50. (arbitrarily
> low, no doubt, but let's just postulate that as well.)
>
> So, if you have to spend just 10 (potentially) billable hours over the
> course of x time (let's say a year... That's 12 minutes a WEEK, BTW)
> converting the Mac jobs that flow through your shop to Windows, dealing
> with font substitution, image shifts, text reflow... you have saved
> exactly how much money by going with the "cheaper" platform?
>
> Zero.
>
> Now, what if your billable rate is $75/hour? $100/hour?
>
> What's your depreciation rate on capital equipment? Two years? Three?
>
> Oh yeah, you sure saved money on that PC.


0
bixster (175)
1/5/2005 4:45:59 AM
In article <biKCd.10059$_X7.5821@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> Absolutely true if we were a service bureau and time was money, but we're a
> newspaper.

ROFLMAO! So you don't feel you have to be efficient?

I work for the largest farm weekly in North America, 75,000 copies sent
to subscribers by mail every week. Average 88 tab pages weekly. I run
the department we call "Production and Creative Services". I've been in
the business for over 25 years and here for a decade. I'm not a novice
at this.

I dare you to walk into your Publisher's office and repeat the
statement you made above. After you do, please don't send me your
resume.

> Our clients pay the same rate whether they make the ad or we do
> (something that I'm not fond of, but it's a sales advantage). We handle
> every format there is from agencies to the ma and pa operations who send
> Word and Powerpoint documents. Reworking some crappy Publisher document
> that's the wrong size into a workable, compatible file is a lot more
> aggravating than opening a Mac file on the PC and massaging it so we can
> easily put it on a page. Remember, most of the Mac files are being made into
> PDFs to be placed onto pages. Only about 20% of our incoming files are
> native anyways, so we're talking about a few files a week that we choose to
> bring over rather than distill directly. All I'm saying is that the process
> works pretty good these days. I certainly wouldn't want to be converting
> files across platforms all day if I was having to bill the time
> competitively.

I recognize that as a newspaper you have to deal with everything from
ads designed in Excel to perfectly formed PDFs. So do I. That's not the
point.

The attitude you appear to be presenting is that controlling your costs
doesn't matter. I suspect you really don't feel that way, but it's a
bloody dangerous trap to fall into.

And, as a newspaper, if you aren't automating your workflow(s) you're
throwing money away. The most cost-efficient way to do that is via
AppleScript which is only available on the Mac platform. I've put
scripted solutions in place in Production/Creative, Editorial, and our
Web Production departments that are saving something like 4 person-days
a week, maybe more. Call it a full time position. And there's more to
come that I'm working on now.

And how many jobs have we cut as a result? None. People have been freed
from doing crap they hate to doing things they enjoy that add value to
our operation. In fact, we're launching a new publication in April.

There's more to making money than saving a few hundred bucks on a
computer.

BTW, the paper I work for is The Western Producer. We're on the web at
www.producer.com (since August 1995...)
0
dave14 (1200)
1/5/2005 5:33:49 AM
I appreciate your expertise in your field, and I believe you when you say
you know what your doing. But my company is hardly pissing money away due to
inefficient practices. Yes we're pretty simplistic in some ways, but our
cost of prepress production has dropped from 4.5% to 2.75% of revenues in
the past five years (on yearly billing of $10,000,000). I wouldn't know an
Apple Script from an apple core, but I inherited a PC environment with 5
weekly tabs and a monthly parenting magazine http://www.chicagoparent.com/
to put out... and miraculously we manage all that with what I've been told
by some is inferior junk. I don't think that suggesting that it's possible
to do so is as ignorant as you make it out to be. I'm sure your newspaper is
well produced, but it sounds like a trade publication, and I presume you
print in-house. We don't have that luxury. The pages leave, the papers come
back... 200-600 pages a week. Some of it is junk, most of it is very good.
The company grows. We just had our 20th anniversary party at the top of the
John Hancock building. We're on the radio and TV. We're not putting this out
on the kitchen table, you know. We'd like to someday automate the process in
the way you mention, but that ain't today. I deal with what I need to get
this week's papers out.

The biggest weekly in town, the Chicago Reader just went to full pagination
in the past couple of months after 30 years of pasting up their huge
quarter-fold. That worked for them, but now they've moved on. We have our
way of doing things, and one day we'll move on. But we're not exactly losing
our shirts here.

I'd like to see a copy of your paper. Could you mail me one? Although I
don't agree with your assessment of my yokel methods, I do know that
eventually we'll be streamlining our production, so I really am interested
in seeing how others have gone about it

I poked around your website, but it kept asking me to register, so I gave
up. Looks good...




"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message
news:040120052333496418%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <biKCd.10059$_X7.5821@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
> Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> > Absolutely true if we were a service bureau and time was money, but
we're a
> > newspaper.
>
> ROFLMAO! So you don't feel you have to be efficient?
>
> I work for the largest farm weekly in North America, 75,000 copies sent
> to subscribers by mail every week. Average 88 tab pages weekly. I run
> the department we call "Production and Creative Services". I've been in
> the business for over 25 years and here for a decade. I'm not a novice
> at this.
>
> I dare you to walk into your Publisher's office and repeat the
> statement you made above. After you do, please don't send me your
> resume.
>
> > Our clients pay the same rate whether they make the ad or we do
> > (something that I'm not fond of, but it's a sales advantage). We handle
> > every format there is from agencies to the ma and pa operations who send
> > Word and Powerpoint documents. Reworking some crappy Publisher document
> > that's the wrong size into a workable, compatible file is a lot more
> > aggravating than opening a Mac file on the PC and massaging it so we can
> > easily put it on a page. Remember, most of the Mac files are being made
into
> > PDFs to be placed onto pages. Only about 20% of our incoming files are
> > native anyways, so we're talking about a few files a week that we choose
to
> > bring over rather than distill directly. All I'm saying is that the
process
> > works pretty good these days. I certainly wouldn't want to be converting
> > files across platforms all day if I was having to bill the time
> > competitively.
>
> I recognize that as a newspaper you have to deal with everything from
> ads designed in Excel to perfectly formed PDFs. So do I. That's not the
> point.
>
> The attitude you appear to be presenting is that controlling your costs
> doesn't matter. I suspect you really don't feel that way, but it's a
> bloody dangerous trap to fall into.
>
> And, as a newspaper, if you aren't automating your workflow(s) you're
> throwing money away. The most cost-efficient way to do that is via
> AppleScript which is only available on the Mac platform. I've put
> scripted solutions in place in Production/Creative, Editorial, and our
> Web Production departments that are saving something like 4 person-days
> a week, maybe more. Call it a full time position. And there's more to
> come that I'm working on now.
>
> And how many jobs have we cut as a result? None. People have been freed
> from doing crap they hate to doing things they enjoy that add value to
> our operation. In fact, we're launching a new publication in April.
>
> There's more to making money than saving a few hundred bucks on a
> computer.
>
> BTW, the paper I work for is The Western Producer. We're on the web at
> www.producer.com (since August 1995...)


0
bixster (175)
1/5/2005 6:53:24 AM
In article <E9MCd.10282$by5.1415@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> Yes we're pretty simplistic in some ways, but our
> cost of prepress production has dropped from 4.5% to 2.75% of revenues
> in the past five years (on yearly billing of $10,000,000).

That's very good. I don't have year end numbers yet but as of period
11, I'm sitting at pre-press costs at 3% of revenue of just under $14
million.

> I'm sure your newspaper is
> well produced, but it sounds like a trade publication, and I presume you
> print in-house.

We're sort of a hybrid. We cover hard news with an ag focus. And while
the printing press is in the same physical location as our head office,
we don't own or operate it (It's a long story, starting about 82 years
ago)

>  I don't think that suggesting that it's possible
> to do so is as ignorant as you make it out to be.

The original gist was that replacing Macs in an existing operation with
cheaper Windows boxes was cost-efficient, and that's what I was
responding to. Clearly that's not the situation you're in so I can see
that much of my argument doesn't apply to your operation.

> I'd like to see a copy of your paper. Could you mail me one?

I'd be happy to. Email me with your postal info.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/5/2005 4:18:31 PM
Joe <notgiven@bogus.com> wrote:

> Mike let me ask you something. If you owned the company and it was your
> money would you buy the computers? If I owned the company and it was my
> money the computers would already be here. I understand the logics of why
> and believe with every bone in my body it is the best thing to do from a
> business stand point.

Why?  Are you planning to use the productivity increases to lay people
off?  If you will pay people for sitting around more and working less
(because you are giving them 36 or 40 or whatever the standard hours
are) then the money you spend won't come back to you. 

If, OTOH, you have people who will put in for fewer hours with the
faster computers, or salespeople that you are holding in check who could
bring in more business, etc., then ordering the computers would be a
no-brainer.

But as a business owner, there is no way I would upgrade machines just
to upgrade machines because they are slower than people like, if that
just means I'll either be paying people to stretch out their day instead
of waiting for the machine, or laying somebody off that I don't want to.

When it's your money, you'll start thinking harder about the bottom
line.  If you can do the same business with the same people working the
same hours and make the same profit with a Quadra 850 as with a G5, then
you don't buy the G5.  When people see your Quadra 850 and laugh at you,
you laugh right back because you haven't spent a dime on that computer
since 1993, while they've spent $3000 every 2 years getting new
machines.  You upgrade when you need new capability, or when something
isn't comfortable (you can't take new business, staff wants fewer hours,
there's somebody you wouldn't mind laying off, etc.).  

Money man is exactly right to want that question answered.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
1/5/2005 5:19:48 PM
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Dave Balderstone writes:
> 
> > Only 25% of his work is on Windows. Why would he want more Windows
> > boxes?
> 
> Because they are cheaper, and they run all the software mentioned.  From
> a bottom-line standpoint, it makes sense.

They aren't cheaper when you consider all the hassles of running jobs on
platforms different from the one they started on.  You've got a bunch of
conversions to deal with, and errors to be checked for, and those aren't
one time expenses.  They build up over time and ultimately dwarf the
difference between the price of a mac and a PC every 2-4 years.  

If 90% of your work was windows based, it might make sense to get rid of
the macs, but 25%?  


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
1/5/2005 5:19:49 PM
Michael Sullivan writes:

> They aren't cheaper when you consider all the hassles of running jobs on
> platforms different from the one they started on.

Nowadays it is increasingly unimportant which platform is used to create
or process a job, since compatibility of files across platforms is
constantly improving.

> If 90% of your work was windows based, it might make sense to get rid of
> the macs, but 25%?  

If you switch to something like a PDF workflow, it won't matter.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/5/2005 6:00:32 PM
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:enaot09r6h7fr4q53s466hv5tjg71f28t7@4ax.com...
> Michael Sullivan writes:
>
>> They aren't cheaper when you consider all the hassles of running jobs on
>> platforms different from the one they started on.
>
> Nowadays it is increasingly unimportant which platform is used to create
> or process a job, since compatibility of files across platforms is
> constantly improving.
>
>> If 90% of your work was windows based, it might make sense to get rid of
>> the macs, but 25%?
>
> If you switch to something like a PDF workflow, it won't matter.
>
> -- 
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

I love it that you're so certain about this! I use a printer with a PDF 
workflow. It was cross-platform conversion that caused all the "e"s set in 
Goudy bold in a PDF ad to drop out - the advertiser was completely 
uninterested in knowing that it almost never happened.

It is time-consuming and expensive to check and check for conversion 
errors - and even excellent pre-press departments can miss a few. In my 
trade - tabloid newspapers - nothing is around for more than 2 months. But 
if I were a book publisher? I'd insist on complete platform and software 
compatibility.

Just my $0.02.


0
peggy9906 (219)
1/5/2005 8:11:57 PM
Peggy would you please elaborate? Was this a document made on one platform 
and remade on another, or was this a PDF made on one platform and then 
redistilled on a page on another platform?





> I love it that you're so certain about this! I use a printer with a PDF 
> workflow. It was cross-platform conversion that caused all the "e"s set in 
> Goudy bold in a PDF ad to drop out - the advertiser was completely 
> uninterested in knowing that it almost never happened.
>
> It is time-consuming and expensive to check and check for conversion 
> errors - and even excellent pre-press departments can miss a few. In my 
> trade - tabloid newspapers - nothing is around for more than 2 months. But 
> if I were a book publisher? I'd insist on complete platform and software 
> compatibility.
>
> Just my $0.02.
>
> 


0
bixster (175)
1/5/2005 9:51:00 PM
Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Sullivan writes:
> 
> > They aren't cheaper when you consider all the hassles of running jobs on
> > platforms different from the one they started on.

> Nowadays it is increasingly unimportant which platform is used to create
> or process a job, since compatibility of files across platforms is
> constantly improving.

You're talking to the head of a prepress department which processes
almost all of our work on macs, including that which originated on PCs.
Of course it's possible to do, and I disagree with the "never" mantra
sometimes spoken here.  But it absolutely requires extra work, and that
extra work more than accounts for the difference in workstation costs.

I believe I'm in a much better position to assess those costs than
someone who has never run a prepress operation which takes files on both
platforms in from outside clients.  I've made the decision to do what
you are proposing (from the other side), and I know what the costs are.
Have you?  Do you?  IIRC, you're a designer and produce your own
material, rarely taking files that you are expected to work on as a
production prepress operator -- to take a few minutes to make small
fixes or produce correct output/PDF, and facing money losses or
customer-hassling phone calls whenever that is not possible.

I wouldn't dream of working this way if I didn't get other benefits down
the line from doing so (which are unique to my type of operation,
although newspapers/magazines might be similar).  A typical prepress
department wouldn't have most of those benefits, hence the standard
mantra.

> > If 90% of your work was windows based, it might make sense to get rid of
> > the macs, but 25%?  

> If you switch to something like a PDF workflow, it won't matter.

It will if I want to have any customers who aren't prepress
professionals.  Do you think the people who have been telling you about
platform incompatibility costs don't *have* a PDF workflow?  

Anyone competent in this industry either has a PDF workflow at this
point, or knows roughly how they work and what advantages they would
gain by switching to one, and has consciously decided that the costs
don't justify the benefits for their particular operation.  

That includes almost all of the people in this conversation.  Why do you
blithely assume that a group of prepress professionals are all simply
unaware of this now industry standard idea?  PDF is not magic, it's just
another tool, and you can botch things with it the same way you can put
a hole in a board with a hammer.


Michael
0
michael296 (152)
1/5/2005 10:48:05 PM
Peggy writes:

> I love it that you're so certain about this! I use a printer with a PDF 
> workflow. It was cross-platform conversion that caused all the "e"s set in 
> Goudy bold in a PDF ad to drop out - the advertiser was completely 
> uninterested in knowing that it almost never happened.

What sort of conversion was necessary for a PDF file?

PDF is probably about the most portable format there is besides plain
text (and even plain text sometimes seems to have more problems).

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/6/2005 1:00:59 AM
"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message 
news:8jZCd.4809$Vj3.2161@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Peggy would you please elaborate? Was this a document made on one platform 
> and remade on another, or was this a PDF made on one platform and then 
> redistilled on a page on another platform?
>
>> I love it that you're so certain about this! I use a printer with a PDF 
>> workflow. It was cross-platform conversion that caused all the "e"s set 
>> in Goudy bold in a PDF ad to drop out - the advertiser was completely 
>> uninterested in knowing that it almost never happened.
>>
<snipped>

As I recall - and I'm too busy just now to double-check - it was an ad that 
I created with Indesign 3 on a PC, placed in a larger Indesign doc and 
output as PDF. I'm not sure if the printer was using my PDF or my native 
Indy doc, but the prepress guy was working on a Mac.

There were other problems with that particular job - but when they were all 
resolved, we still lost the "e"s, and I have to think it was because they 
were using a different Goudy.

Why oh why is that wonderful feature of being able to use PC fonts on a Mac 
with Indesign now broken? What a shame! Well, good news for the vendors of 
Opentype ...


0
peggy9906 (219)
1/6/2005 1:24:59 AM
On 1/5/05 7:00 PM, "Mxsmanic" wrote:

> Peggy writes:
> 
>> I love it that you're so certain about this! I use a printer with a PDF
>> workflow. It was cross-platform conversion that caused all the "e"s set in
>> Goudy bold in a PDF ad to drop out - the advertiser was completely
>> uninterested in knowing that it almost never happened.
> 
> What sort of conversion was necessary for a PDF file?
> 
> PDF is probably about the most portable format there is besides plain
> text (and even plain text sometimes seems to have more problems).

Yes, PDF is extremely portable...if created correctly. Sounds to me like
Peggy received a PDF ad that wasn't created correctly. Apparently the fonts
weren't embedded, and her layout application didn't handle the situation
very well.

If you open a PDF that doesn't have all of it's fonts embedded, regardless
of platform, a font substitution will occur if the same exact fonts aren't
active. This is a conversion. From one computer to another. Platform to
platform. Deny it all you like, but a cross-platform workflow can be
dangerous even if all parties involved are fully capable of doing a damn
good job of setting up files.

PDF is not a magic bullet.

I thank God each night for PitStop! :)

Tim






0
tmonk1 (342)
1/6/2005 2:25:34 AM
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 20:47:25 -0500, Mike Koewler <wordwiz@fuse.net>
wrote:

>
>I must be lucky. I have a customer who sends me 4-6 Quark 4 files 
>created on a Mac every week. I have Quark 5 on a PC. Once every three 
>weeks or so, I have to adjust a text frame because a word or so has gone 
>out of bounds. I can live with this.
>
That's about right for me, too. I just eyeball the PDF of my Mac-based
client's Quark file, and rarely is there a problem.

Cross-platform isn't the big deal it was even five years ago in my
experience. PDF is making it even less of an issue. 

R.
0
rhys (175)
1/6/2005 2:36:36 AM
On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 04:49:16 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>You mean software isn't bloating fast enough to erase gains in hardware
>horsepower?  I see that as a _good_ thing; I'm tired of upgrading.

Well, that would be one way of looking at it. Another would be that
leading-edge hardware is very fast, but very hot, potentially noisy
due to fans, and boxes require bigger power supplies, etc.

I find, however, that the gains in speed and (presumably) productivity
are not currently great enough when new software can still be run on
three year old machines like mine. 

I had a friend in the '70s who put some ridiculously huge V8 in a
Chevy Vega. The drive train needed exchanging, extensive body work was
required, his gas mileage plummeted and yes, he could make it go 120
mph.

Then the doors would fly off. Vegas aren't meant to go 120 mph, after
all. He ended up just driving this ridiculously overpowered beast at
city traffic speeds, lest something shake off from the pounding.
Sounded great, though <G>

I'm waiting for a new iteration of Windoze as good as the 64-bit
proprietary OSes of ten years back before I bother with the next Great
Leap Forward.

R.

0
rhys (175)
1/6/2005 2:48:30 AM
This has been a lively, feisty discussion that has managed to be informative
even while veering towards platform wars, but in all our talking about
technical mishaps, we shouldn't forget that plain old human error and
miscommunication can be the most costly of all.

Our January issue of our parenting magazine came out last week. It was
produced on a lazy holiday schedule that gave us an extra day to produce it,
and the printer an extra week to print it. Two days before production, late
sales required us to bump the ad well (a zoned special advertising section
in the middle of the paper) in one of our zones from 20 to 24 pages,
bringing the publication up to 128 pages from 124. Our traffic manager,
assuming from emails that our operations manager had talked to the printer
about the changes, put the new page plan on their FTP. The printer, as it
turned out, was never informed of the change. The new page plan was ignored
because they weren't expecting it, and they were working from the signature
schematic which had never been updated. They pulled the 20 pages of the ad
section off the FTP and somehow missed the last 4 pages. The magazine was
printed and delivered, and *one week later* someone noticed the missing
pages, all filled with ads to the tune of about $4,000 in sales that we'll
have to make good on. The irony that this occurred on the most relaxed
(albeit holiday-stoked)deadline  has not been lost on us. By far the biggest
boneheaded error of any of our publications this year. It had nothing to do
with Macs/PCs/PDFs/Fonts/Postscript/Cheap Equipment/Expensive Equipment or
any of the other elements of our business that we've been so vehemently
championing or villifying. Pure, simple human error that a 10 second phone
call would have prevented. Carelessness brought on by months of smooth
sailing.. Or as Ronald Reagan might have said..."Trust, but verify"



0
bixster (175)
1/6/2005 2:50:37 AM
In article <Bu-dnQKHmdvHDkHcRVn-sg@comcast.com>, Peggy
<peggy@XpcdesktopdesignX.com> wrote:

> Why oh why is that wonderful feature of being able to use PC fonts on a Mac 
> with Indesign now broken?

It isn't, AFAIK.

Windows can't use Mac fonts, but Mac users can use WIn fonts...

What probs are you seeing?

djb
0
dave14 (1200)
1/6/2005 3:08:40 AM
In article <1I1Dd.4929$Vj3.176@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>, Dennis
Gordon <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote:

> By far the biggest
> boneheaded error of any of our publications this year. It had nothing to do
> with Macs/PCs/PDFs/Fonts/Postscript/Cheap Equipment/Expensive Equipment or
> any of the other elements of our business that we've been so vehemently
> championing or villifying. Pure, simple human error that a 10 second phone
> call would have prevented.

Aye, there's the rub.

Been there, done that, sincere heartfelt "ouch".

But (dig, dig, dig...), a 4 page screwup only cost $4K?

A single page screwup here costs us about $7K...

;-)

<d&r>

"Our mistakes cost more than yours do! Neener neener neener!"

LOL!
0
dave14 (1200)
1/6/2005 5:11:47 AM
rhys writes:

> I'm waiting for a new iteration of Windoze as good as the 64-bit
> proprietary OSes of ten years back before I bother with the next Great
> Leap Forward.

What are you running in the meantime?  Neither OS X nor the NT Windows
family is 64-bit.

-- 
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
0
mxsmanic (624)
1/6/2005 5:27:04 AM
Well I was estimating the value of the ads. All b/w... special
section...last minute deals. Maybe it was twice that... yeah, I think it was
twice that now that I think of it...;-)

These were for summer camps and park districts. They don't have much money.

I'll have to ask what it really cost us



"> Aye, there's the rub.
>
> Been there, done that, sincere heartfelt "ouch".
>
> But (dig, dig, dig...), a 4 page screwup only cost $4K?
>
> A single page screwup here costs us about $7K...
>
> ;-)
>
> <d&r>
>
> "Our mistakes cost more than yours do! Neener neener neener!"
>
> LOL!


0
bixster (175)
1/6/2005 5:30:16 AM
In article <5c9pt0l8jd6d2p1mqj60clp86gos1te8aq@4ax.com>, rhys wrote:

> I'm waiting for a new iteration of Windoze as good as the 64-bit
> proprietary OSes of ten years back

Which one(s) would that be, specifically?

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
1/6/2005 7:31:58 AM
In article <Bu-dnQKHmdvHDkHcRVn-sg@comcast.com>, Peggy wrote:

>> Peggy would you please elaborate? Was this a document made on one
>> platform and remade on another, or was this a PDF made on one
>> platform and then redistilled on a page on another platform?

>>> I love it that you're so certain about this! I use a printer with
>>> a PDF workflow. It was cross-platform conversion that caused all
>>> the "e"s set in Goudy bold in a PDF ad to drop out - the
>>> advertiser was completely uninterested in knowing that it almost
>>> never happened.

> As I recall - and I'm too busy just now to double-check - it was an
> ad that I created with Indesign 3 on a PC, placed in a larger
> Indesign doc and output as PDF.

Did that PDF have all the fonts it required embedded in it? And better 
yet, were they subsetted (and thus renamed, and thus unlikely to be 
substituted with anything else)? That's the crux of the problem.

> I'm not sure if the printer was using my PDF or my native Indy doc

My guess is that they were not using the PDF file. 

--

0
jdoherty (1055)
1/6/2005 7:36:38 AM

>
> > I'm waiting for a new iteration of Windoze as good as the 64-bit
> > proprietary OSes of ten years back
>
> Which one(s) would that be, specifically?
>
Open VMS Alpha?

Ted


0
tjpolite (192)
1/6/2005 11:11:58 AM
Hey, wait... aren't you talking Canadian dollars? The ones with pictures of
the Queen and mounties and hockey players? I'm talking good ol' U.S.
currency here... oh wait, that ain't worth much either these days....


"Dennis Gordon" <bixster@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:H14Dd.4978$Vj3.1904@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> Well I was estimating the value of the ads. All b/w... special
> section...last minute deals. Maybe it was twice that... yeah, I think it
was
> twice that now that I think of it...;-)
>
> These were for summer camps and park districts. They don't have much
money.
>
> I'll have to ask what it really cost us
>
>
>
> "> Aye, there's the rub.
> >
> > Been there, done that, sincere heartfelt "ouch".
> >
> > But (dig, dig, dig...), a 4 page screwup only cost $4K?
> >
> > A single page screwup here costs us about $7K...
> >
> > ;-)
> >
> > <d&r>
> >
> > "Our mistakes cost more than yours do! Neener neener neener!"
> >
> > LOL!
>
>


0
bixster (175)
1/6/2005 1:01:31 PM
In article <050120052108408652%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>> Why oh why is that wonderful feature of being able to use PC fonts
>> on a Mac with Indesign now broken?

> It isn't, AFAIK.

Well, it doesn't work for me with InDesign CS. Putting Windows-format
TrueType or PostScript fonts in InDesign's "Fonts" directory does
nothing.

--
0
jdoherty (1055)
1/6/2005 7:40:12 PM
In article <jdoherty-FBBFC0.13401106012005@news.newsguy.com>, John
Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> Well, it doesn't work for me with InDesign CS. Putting Windows-format
> TrueType or PostScript fonts in InDesign's "Fonts" directory does
> nothing.

Try putting them in /Library/Fonts or ~/Library/Fonts.

I haven't worked with Windows Postscript fonts in OSX but I've had no
trouble with TTs.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/6/2005 8:41:43 PM
In article <060120051441435363%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca>,
 Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

> In article <jdoherty-FBBFC0.13401106012005@news.newsguy.com>, John
> Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> 
> > Well, it doesn't work for me with InDesign CS. Putting Windows-format
> > TrueType or PostScript fonts in InDesign's "Fonts" directory does
> > nothing.
> 
> Try putting them in /Library/Fonts or ~/Library/Fonts.

That works OK. So what the hell is the point of InDesign having
its own "Fonts" directory, anyway? It doesn't seem to serve any
purpose.

--
0
jdoherty (1055)
1/6/2005 9:27:52 PM
In article <jdoherty-210E7B.15275206012005@news.newsguy.com>, John
Doherty <jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

> That works OK. So what the hell is the point of InDesign having
> its own "Fonts" directory, anyway? It doesn't seem to serve any
> purpose.

Beats me.
0
dave14 (1200)
1/6/2005 10:51:13 PM
John Doherty wrote:

> 
> That works OK. So what the hell is the point of InDesign having
> its own "Fonts" directory, anyway? It doesn't seem to serve any
> purpose.
> 
> --

It was handy in OS9 with ID2, but with OSX's font support it became 
superfluous.
Jay
0
1/6/2005 11:31:42 PM
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 06:27:04 +0100, Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>What are you running in the meantime?  Neither OS X nor the NT Windows
>family is 64-bit.

Windows 2000 with the latest service packs, Pagemaker 7, Quark 5, Indy
CS, old Photoshop 6, Illustrator 9, Corel Suite 11, under a
2001-vintage dual processor PIII 1 Ghz Asus MB with 1.5 Ghz of RAM, a
19" Viewsonic LCD and three HDs in an array and networked to an even
older PII dual processor system.

I avoid MS bloatware as much as possible in favour of Mozilla, Eudora,
FreeAgent, and so on. Allows me to get the remaining cycles out of
this old rig.

The power of the newer rigs and chips won't be useful to me as a
designer until such time as newer OSes (and recompiles of current
applications) can make full use of the power of existing hardware.

R.
0
rhys (175)
1/11/2005 12:22:40 AM
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 01:31:58 -0600, John Doherty
<jdoherty@nowhere.null.not> wrote:

>In article <5c9pt0l8jd6d2p1mqj60clp86gos1te8aq@4ax.com>, rhys wrote:
>
>> I'm waiting for a new iteration of Windoze as good as the 64-bit
>> proprietary OSes of ten years back
>
>Which one(s) would that be, specifically?

There was a 64-bit OS written to exploit the DEC Alpha chips used in
workstations ten years ago, but it was too far ahead of its time.
There's still something called Tru64 Unix for Alpha systems.

There are currently 64-bit SuSe 9.1 distros of Linux and a few other
"hobbyist" OSes as well. If Microsoft would stop rewriting the thing,
there could have been a XP 64 some time ago, to make use of the latest
PC-platform architectures.

R.
0
rhys (175)
1/11/2005 12:29:55 AM
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 06:11:58 -0500, "Ted" <tjpolite@comcast.net> wrote:

>
>
>>
>> > I'm waiting for a new iteration of Windoze as good as the 64-bit
>> > proprietary OSes of ten years back
>>
>> Which one(s) would that be, specifically?
>>
>Open VMS Alpha?

I believe so. I recall it from prior to the assimilation of Digital by
HP some years ago. Quite popular in back-offices.

R.
0
rhys (175)
1/11/2005 12:31:00 AM
In article <3kj5u0tbvoq6q7c1v3oboekcg3irv5uhh2@4ax.com>, rhys
<rhys@nospam.com> wrote:

> 1.5 Ghz of RAM

????
0
dave14 (1200)
1/11/2005 5:58:29 AM
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:58:29 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:

>In article <3kj5u0tbvoq6q7c1v3oboekcg3irv5uhh2@4ax.com>, rhys
><rhys@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> 1.5 Ghz of RAM
>
>????

Oopsie. I meant 1.5 Gigs of RAM in three 512 Meg sticks. Good
catch...that was a lot in late 2001, but it's piffling today.

R.

0
rhys (175)
1/12/2005 3:04:57 PM
In article <k2fau0plgq9970orv8tps29jitmditt5ml@4ax.com>, rhys
<rhys@nospam.com> wrote:

> Oopsie. I meant 1.5 Gigs of RAM in three 512 Meg sticks. Good
> catch...that was a lot in late 2001, but it's piffling today.

I was wondering where you were getting RAM that ran at 1.5 gigahertz...
0
dave14 (1200)
1/12/2005 4:30:35 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

New computer, new monitor
Thought I'd show you something cool: http://www.synthcom.com/~nb/100_2104.JPG This is one of the new Dell 2405FPW LCD monitors connected to my Mac Mini: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?sku=320-4221&spagenum=&category_id=6198&brandid=56&k=&c=us&l=en&cs=19&mnf=&prst=&prEnd=&mnfsku=&orderby=&searchtype=&pageb4search=&page=productlisting.aspx&instock=&refurbished= Native resolution is 1920x1200. Cost was $1079 online. This monitor blows the doors off of any LCD I've seen. Response time is crisp (games look great). I actually had to turn down the brightness because it was SOOO bright). -->Neil Neil Bradley <nb_no_spam@synthcom.com> wrote: > Thought I'd show you something cool: > http://www.synthcom.com/~nb/100_2104.JPG > This is one of the new Dell 2405FPW LCD monitors connected to my Mac Mini: > http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/ProductDetail.aspx?sku=320-4221&spagenum=&category_id=6198&brandid=56&k=&c=us&l=en&cs=19&mnf=&prst=&prEnd=&mnfsku=&orderby=&searchtype=&pageb4search=&page=productlisting.aspx&instock=&refurbished= > Native resolution is 1920x1200. Cost was $1079 online. This monitor > blows the doors off of any LCD I've seen. Response time is crisp (games > look great). I actually had to turn down the brightness because it was > SOOO bright). Nice mon...

Why is my old computer faster than my new computer?
Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has OpenOffice. P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97. P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for Windows) Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer. DFS wrote: > Because my old computer runs MS Office, and my new computer has OpenOffice. > > P1-166, 32mb: 7 seconds to launch MS Excel 97. > P4-2000, 1000mb: 12 seconds to launch OpenOffice Calc 2.0 (for Windows) > > Linux/OSS: sucks the life out of a computer. <sarcasm> Gee. I have absolutely no idea what the respons...

New ebook about publishing : Self-Publishing Simplified
Hi everyone, from time to time several of us at Outskirts Press have posted with articles and tips from our free e-University courses. Lately, we've all been busy getting our ebook publishing guide finalized and now it is available for free from http://outskirtspress.com You can decide whether or not it is right for you. Here is an excerpt. Hopefully it helps some of you. Cheers, Gem ----- When the movie studio system was formed in the early 1900s, actors were signed to exclusive deals, treated like commodities, and paid pennies. The studios maintained all the control and m...

2 new computers = 2 new problems ???
I have a workgrup with computers running XP Pro and 98SE. Everything was fine with the local network. Every single computer was able to see all computers in the network. I replaced 2 computers running 98SE with 2 new computers with XP Pro installed. This 2 new identical computers cannot see each-other from time to time. They have the same settings as the other computers running XP Pro on the network. All other computers in the network can see these 2 new computers, all the time. If I try to repair the "Local area connection", sometimes they can see each other, sometimes not. If I ...

A whole new world. A whole new computer.
<http://thisisthecountdown.com/> ----- A whole new world. A whole new computer. ----- Apple gets reamed by some in COLA for hyping their products. Where is the finger pointing toward Ubuntu? -- 🙈🙉🙊 ...

Javascript new-new-new-new-newbee
Hello, The last two days I have done some Javascripting, but without succes. My goal is the following: I have 4 <form>-input fields; 2 <select> and 2 <input type=text>. The <select> fields are 'number (1 until 10)' and a description-list. When the number or description changes, the function calculate must be called. So far, so good. My problem is that I don't know how to handle the vars in Javascript. I read the internet for two days, but I do not know what to do. My problem is that I get an [object] output. So, I think that is an array, but I do not know w...

2008 new year of new computer -os-linux-
skfj hkwjfb kmsdnf cg http://www.freewebs.com/thuiss/ http://indianfriendfinder.com/go/g924418-pmem ...

Copying partitions to new computer vs. new install
Hi, I have a 5.3-R installation on a laptop that is going to be exchanged by another model. The new model doesn't have the same hardware of course, the disk is bigger, the graphics chip and LAN card different. Can I save the work of a complete new install by creating partitions on the new disk and copying root and home partition over? Apart from xorg.conf, can I leave the configuration untouched if I boot the generic kernel? Boris "Boris_H" <borish*No*@Spam*gmx.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:cpujue$o50$1@ngspool-d02.news.aol.com... > Hi, > > I have a 5.3-R installation on a laptop that is going to be exchanged by > another model. The new model doesn't have the same hardware of course, the > disk is bigger, the graphics chip and LAN card different. You will need to edit the ifconfig_ -line in your rc.conf to match your new NIC. > > Can I save the work of a complete new install by creating partitions on > the > new disk and copying root and home partition over? Apart from xorg.conf, > can I leave the configuration untouched if I boot the generic kernel? > > Boris There is a good article in the bsd-faq, "i got a huge new disk, how do get my data ..." or alike, I'm sure you're gonna find it, it deals about dump/restore. Unfortunatly, your notebook won't allow to attach several hdd's as your desktop does, so probably you need to look for ide-adapter...

Computer and grapics card question for new computer/laptop
I am looking to upgrade computers soon and would appreciate some input. I am running SW2008 sp4 32 bit XP Professional SP2 My current system: Pentium 3.4 ghz EE processor with 4GB ram. Nvidea Quadro FX 3000 8x agp graphics card. (has 256 ram) I run (2) 20" samsung flatscreen monitors. I run SW dedicated to one monitor with reference material and other programs in the second monitor. I would guess the computer is at least three years old. I have not had any real performance issues with the computer set up I listed above. It seems to be able to run SolidWorks with the largest assemblie...

new or not new
Hi, Suppose we have a class A.Why or when do you use main() { A *ptr = new A; // instead of A ptr; } Johan Johan den Boer wrote: > Hi, > > Suppose we have a class A.Why or when do you use > > main() > { > A *ptr = new A; > > // instead of > > A ptr; > } > > Johan > > Use "A ptr;" whenever possible. Allocating A dynamically (with "new") can be very slow, and usually means you must be careful to free the memory (with "delete") later in the program. The need to allocate an indiv...

New computer
Hey- Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Desktop PCs! I've joined and I think you should as well. It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff! All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it! Here is my referral link. To help me get my Desktop PC, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser: http://www.FreeDesktopPC.com/?r=13995904 this is my second free computer. Its awesome. Get it and sell it or use it. Its free. Who cares....

New computer
Hey- Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Desktop PCs! I've joined and I think you should as well. It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff! All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it! Here is my referral link. To help me get my Desktop PC, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser: http://www.FreeDesktopPC.com/?r=13995904 this is my second free computer. Its awesome. Get it and sell it or use it. Its free. Who cares....

"New" computer -- new LM 13 install
Power supply fan went out on my other computer, so I got out my spare desktop and installed Linux Mint 13 "Mate" edition and finished with the install and updating in about 40 minutes. Not bad for an "ancient" (8 year old) Optiplex GX270. A modern Windows install wouldn't run on this computer and, if it did, it would take about five hours to install and update (plus finding and installing all the software for playing and writing DVDs, playing MP3s, watching Hulu, Crackle, etc.). Linux Mint does it all in one shot. But what a shock when I installed Pan a...

New computer
Hey- Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Desktop PCs! I've joined and I think you should as well. It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff! All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it! Here is my referral link. To help me get my Desktop PC, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser: http://www.FreeDesktopPC.com/?r=13995904 this is my second free computer. Its awesome. Get it and sell it or use it. Its free. Who cares....

New computer
Hey- Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Desktop PCs! I've joined and I think you should as well. It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff! All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it! Here is my referral link. To help me get my Desktop PC, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser: http://www.FreeDesktopPC.com/?r=13995904 this is my second free computer. Its awesome. Get it and sell it or use it. Its ...

US-PA: New Castle-COMPUTER FRANCHISE, NEW CASTLE
************************************************************** JobCircle.com - Careers, Content and Community for Technology professionals in the Northeastern United States! Jobcircle.com provides resume submission, classified searches, eLearning, hundreds of career development articles, tech news, and more to tens of thousands of Technology professionals in your area - visit us today at http://www.jobcircle.com! !!! Voted a TOP 50 Career Web Site in 2002 by CareerXRoads !!! ************************************************************** Please reply to responses@comptroub.com with your resume! Job Title: COMPUTER FRANCHISE, NEW CASTLE Job Location: PA: New Castle Pay Rate: Set by you Job Length: full time Start Date: 2003-09-03 Company Name: Computer Troubleshooters USA, Inc. Contact: Chip Reaves Phone: 770-454-6382 Fax: email preferred Description: WORK FOR YOURSELF, NOT BY YOURSELF... Computer Troubleshooters... The #1 franchise organization for Computer Techs and IT Professionals with 200+ locations worldwide. $10,400 gets you an exclusive territory, training, marketing materials, manuals and assistance/support. NO royalties... just a small monthly fee commencing in month 7. Go to www.comptroub.com to request more information. Applicant must be a U.S. resident or currently able to legally work in the U.S. For FASTEST PROCESSING of your resume, please visit http://www.jobcircle.com/classif...

And this is my new computer ....
I'm very proud. More than five year to have a Telestrat and now is "my treasure" Very dificult to own one of these computers but i'm very happy. www.geocities.com/mis_ordenadores/telestrat.jpg The image is a little big. Regards Congratulations! And welcome to the club. :-) /H�kan <clasicmp@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet news:5bfa60ef.0504290908.4163328d@posting.google.com... > I'm very proud. More than five year to have a Telestrat and now is "my > treasure" > > Very dificult to own one of these computers but i'...

New computer
Hey- Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Desktop PCs! I've joined and I think you should as well. It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff! All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it! Here is my referral link. To help me get my Desktop PC, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser: http://www.FreeDesktopPC.com/?r=13995904 this is my second free computer. Its awesome. Get it and sell it or use it. Its ...

new computers
We are looking at getting a new computer. What is the best one???? draco_dem355@spankthedonkey.com (Draco) wrote in message news:<660c6c98.0409220504.22ee703d@posting.google.com>... > We are looking at getting a new computer. What is the best one???? Hi Draco, its good that u r looking for a computer ... but hey ... first of all for what purpose do u hv & what is the budget that u can spend. u don't need to tell me ur bank balance ;) but its a v. important factor. If u r not looking for v.high graphics (hi-fi games etc) & Microsoft (windows) u r familiar then u should go for : >>*Low budget but effective soln: Celeron xxGHz process with a matching motherboard (ASUS or Intel). Rest fancies like VDU, speakers ... the more the honey the sweeter the taste! *medium budget: go for a Pentium IV processor instead of Celeron. high budget: no limits ... best one: purchase a supercomputer which will be obsolete in few years ;) *but in any-case Don't compromise with DDR - SDRAM. Preffer for atleast 256mb DDR module. btw, which country u r frm ... u can consult some of ur frnds who hv computers. They too will agree for one thing ... ultimately whats the purpose thats going to work out for me with minimum budget because the time u will get acquanted with ur new hi-fi mouse, a new technology will outrun ur processor's power! happy purchasing Kaps :) draco_dem355@spankthedonkey.com (Draco) wrote in m...

*new or new?
It is better: AnyClass &reg=*new AnyClass(); reg.Function(); or: AnyClass *reg=new AnyClass(); reg->Function(); Thanks Cristiano "Cristiano" <cristiano.pi@NSquipo.it> wrote... > It is better: > AnyClass &reg=*new AnyClass(); > reg.Function(); > > or: > AnyClass *reg=new AnyClass(); > reg->Function(); For those two fragments the difference is only in the amount of storage the program uses. The latter case _allocates_ some storage for the pointer, and for the former it is unspecified because it is up to the...

New computer
Hey- Check out this great site that is giving away totally FREE Desktop PCs! I've joined and I think you should as well. It's a completely legitimate offer, and this company has already given away $4 million in FREE stuff! All you have to do is join, complete an online offer, and refer friends to do the same. That's it! Here is my referral link. To help me get my Desktop PC, click this exact link to join, or copy and paste it into a browser: http://www.FreeDesktopPC.com/?r=13995904 this is my second free computer. Its awesome. Get it and sell it or use it. Its ...

New Computer
I am finally getting a new computer. What files/folders do I need to copy from the old computer so I can port over my mail, address books, etc to the new computer? [POSTED TO comp.mail.pegasus-mail.ms-windows - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE] In <e2mjt052dipiibmi2idokmuk1r4jvr653p@4ax.com> on Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:42:39 -0500, breaker <*breaker*@*komcast.net> wrote: >I am finally getting a new computer. What files/folders do I need to >copy from the old computer so I can port over my mail, address books, >etc to the new computer? The entire mailbox directory. -- ...

New Computer?
Need a recommendation.... I have a system I bought last year, and I'm coming back from Iraq with a little extra $$.....so I'm not sure if I should get a new one, or wait for a bit until technology improves...this is what I have; Gigabyte Motherboard P4/3.4Gigz Prescott 1024mb DDR400 memory Fujitsu 160G SATA HD ATI Radeon 9800 AGP Video Card Sony Dual Layer DVD/CD RW I was looking at a high end Dual Core AMD system, with a PCI-Express video card... is it worth the 2k investment, or should I keep my current system? <drrouter@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1137254476.1336...

my new computer...
has a card reader... but no matter which OS I use (Windows /Linux)... It cannot read my cards: https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556123_578492992178074_80954515_n.jpg -- https://www.createspace.com/3707686 On 2/9/2013 5:06 PM, philo wrote: > has a card reader... > but no matter which OS I use (Windows /Linux)... > It cannot read my cards: > > https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556123_578492992178074_80954515_n.jpg > I doubt that there are any computers left, except some old government computer, that could read that card. Looks like it has one line of fortran on it. I almost got my hands on a PDP-11 set of fortran cards that had the spice source code on them. On 02/09/2013 06:08 PM, GreyCloud wrote: > On 2/9/2013 5:06 PM, philo wrote: >> has a card reader... >> but no matter which OS I use (Windows /Linux)... >> It cannot read my cards: >> >> https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/556123_578492992178074_80954515_n.jpg >> >> > > I doubt that there are any computers left, except some old government > computer, that could read that card. Looks like it has one line of > fortran on it. > > I almost got my hands on a PDP-11 set of fortran cards that had the > spice source code on them. > I was going through some old stuff and that card was actually punched as recently as 1979! On another group where I posted my...

Web resources about - justify new computers - comp.publish.prepress

Computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Computer technology" and "Computer system" redirect here. For the company, see Computer Technology Limited . For other uses, see Computer (disambiguation) ...

Computer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Computer technology" and "Computer system" redirect here. For the company, see Computer Technology Limited . For other uses, see Computer (disambiguation) ...

Computer Show
The first episode premiered at XOXO last month, and it brought the house down. I think you’re best off going in cold — just grab a beverage and ...

Red State, Blue State. Colored by a @DwaveSys quantum computer:https://www.flickr.com/photos/jurvetson/25473684712/ ...
... I saw this four-colored map of U.S. counties in the latest board pack. D-Wave embedded this map-coloring problem into a prototype quantum computer ...

Computer security experts warn of first ransomware to hit Apple Macs
Computer security experts warn that ransomware hackers have targeted Apple Mac users for the first time with malicious software that will lock ...

Mac users are being attacked by malware that locks their computer and demands a $400 ransom — here’s ...
Malware from the app Transmission has recently attacked many Mac users. Users are locked out of their computers and are forced to pay a $400 ...

Google exec can't wait for a computer to love him
Technically Incorrect: Ray Kurzweil insists that in the near future computers will know what it is to think and be like us.

Authorities seize computers, knives from teen suspect's home
MIDDLETOWN, Ohio (AP) — Authorities in southwest Ohio have seized computers, knives, a BB gun and other items from the home of a 14-year-old ...

Quantum computer revolves around just 5 atoms
It's no mean feat to find the factors of a very large number even a supercomputer can take years to find all the multipliers. However, MIT researchers ...

Oculus Founder Disses Apple Over Power of Its Computers to Run VR
Oculus founder Palmer Luckey says he'd consider supporting Mac OS on the Rift VR headset if Apple "ever releases a good computer."

Resources last updated: 3/10/2016 12:35:14 AM