Article View: comp.text.desktop
Article #342Re: Ventura
From: Jack Love
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 19:28
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 1992 19:28
48 lines
2693 bytes
2693 bytes
In article <1992Nov5.115350.17166@ircam.fr> francis@ircam.fr (Joseph Francis) writes: > >I'll toss my hat in the ring. I had to design and typeset some books >for travellers in Eastern Europe (Poland and Romania), and granted I >had to use an XT with a 40mb disk and a hercules display, and a >laserjet IIP/PacificPage postscript, I don't see how it could have >been done with other packages as easily, if at all. It was essentially >organizing a database of contacts in a meaningful way, and generating >postscript output to make the films. I have become fairly adept at >Ventura, which isn't at all a friendly program. I agree. > >There are virtually no keyboard shortcuts (c'mon, I have to always go >through menus to print a page or to quit? To pull up font You may recall that I got into this pickle by merely suggesting that someone might want to look at Ventura 4.1. In 4.1 you can print by pressing a button on a button bar. I haven't made a survey of how many keyboard shortcuts there are, but I think there is an increasing trend to go the button bar (or speed bar or whatever) route. I'm fond of keyboard shortcuts myself, but in recent years I've had to give up on most because I just can't remember them well enough to avoid sending my work into the ether from time to time. (For better or for worse I have to work on 5 different O/S platforms and I find that even the same software sold on different platforms employs different keyboard shortcuts from one platform to the next. Anybody remember moving from control-c in WordStar to something else? <smile>) >Can anyone summarize the difference between Ventura 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0(1)? 2.0 was a good program for its time. 3.0 was treading water and attempting to expand to Windows. Poorly in my opinion. 4.0 was an attempt to clean up for Windows. Failed, in my opinion. 4.1 is a nice try which will keep a few of us in the fold for the time being. >laugh when I try to think about why Ventura doesn't scale EPS files >correctly when I say 'fit to frame' and 'distorted' and I have to >get something out yesterday. > I appreciate the good humor. Jack F. Love
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1dbskhINN2bl@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu!jloveReferences:
<1992Nov3.014331.3755@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1d64e1INN2ba@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> <1992Nov5.115350.17166@ircam.fr>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!gumby!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu!jlove From: jlove@ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu (Jack Love) Newsgroups: comp.text.desktop Subject: Re: Ventura Date: 5 Nov 1992 19:28:17 GMT Organization: /usr/local/trn/lib/organization Lines: 48 Message-ID: <1dbskhINN2bl@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> References: <1992Nov3.014331.3755@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> <1d64e1INN2ba@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> <1992Nov5.115350.17166@ircam.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: ivrit.ra.itd.umich.edu