🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1203@esquire.UUCP> sbb@esquire.UUCP (Stephen B. Baumgarten) writes:
>In article <30507@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes:
>>If the styles from Word are necessary, you'll need PageMaker. RSG 4.0 would
>>handle a long document fine, so would pagemaker. I had endless problems
>>trying to do long documents in RSG 4.5, however, so I can't recommend it.
>
>On a related topic, I was wondering whether a bug-fix version of 4.5
>had been released recently.  The current version seems to have a good
>number of them, including the inability to run with the cache on,
>problems moving runaround text boxes, problems with auto-reflow of
>text from later pages to earlier pages, etc.
>
>Still, I'd rather use it than PageMaker, although unless things get
>fixed soon I may give Quark another look.

I just finished a 300 page book using Word and XPress. I did all the drafts
(about six) in Word, then imported the works into XPress. It went very
smoothly. XPress understands Word very well, including styles. The latest
version also understands Word dictionaries. Some clean-up was necessary
because XPress is much smarter about kerning, etc., so a few line and
page breaks shifted. A good combination, although I've had a love/hate
relationship with Word for years. On the other hand, if XPress gets much
better I'll use it exclusively. (Version 2.1 even lets you edit kerning
tables for each font.)

(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
(garbage)
-- 
Frank Kolnick,
consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank


-- 
Frank Kolnick,
consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank