🚀 go-pugleaf

This isn't a flame.  I'm more concerned about some valid comparisons,
and I've never used a Mac for theese applications.  If there is someone
who knows better, please give us some info.  Personally, I think blaming
the hardware manufacturers for the decisions that software publishers
have made is silly.

In article <1989Dec18.142406.5066@hellgate.utah.edu> t-jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Tony Jacobs) writes:
| BIG DEAL! You're not saying anything here. There's far more software which
| means theres far more junk. Why don't you be so daring as to go on the record
| as stating there is far more *High*Quality* graphics software or that the PC
| software is of a *Higer*Quality* than the graphics software of the Mac.
| I doubt the Desktop Publishing Software is better.

As far as I know, Quark Xpress is still strictly Mac, but nearly all
others have been ported to the PC's.  I expect the writers to port it
to Windows.  They would be stupid not to.

| I doubt the Paint type programs are better.
| I doubt the Illustration type programs are better.

Both CorelDRAW and the MicroGrafx line are some of the hottest programs
in this category.

| I doubt the Presentation type programs are better.

I'm not sure what you mean by "presentation" type programs, but I've put
together some prety darn nice looking stuff with Excel and Windows.  I
also haven't had to break my neck in doing so.

| I doubt the 3D Rendering type programs are better.

Let's see: Autocad, Cadvance, Design CAD 3D, and now Generic CAD.  That's
a fairly impressive lineup of software.  In fact, the one graphics area
where the IBM has been ahead of the Mac (as far as I've read) is in CAD.
But then, there are others that have been far ahead of both systems for
a long time in this area.


--
Rick

"Any questions?  Any answers?  Anyone care for a mint?" -- Rita Rudner