This content has been marked as final. Show 99 replies
Commercial Printers can take MS Publisher files, but they are going to charge you extra more than likely, because they have to PDF the files and then place them in QXP,PM or INDD. Color separations are just flat out not there. Your boss should do some study on which is best. He can get product information right from the Adobe site. Have him call some bureaus and aks them if they prefer Publisher, which is geared to office lasers, inkjets and such or if they prefer PM over it.
As far as the key entry person, they can use word to type what they want and save it in RTF format for you to bring into the final layout.
Thanks, Ken. The commercial printer I use here told me that they want nothing to do with Publisher files, but maybe that's just their preference. At any rate, I explained all the benefits in great detail, but for someone who has never even touched a DTP program, it doesn't mean much. The work done on these templates will probably only be printed in house on our color laser printer anyway. I just can't imagine working in program where you can only open one document at a time!!!
Take it from the Prepress Dept of a commercial printer: Publisher = *%#^&%#!!!
Publisher is great, I guess, if you've never worked in pagemaker or any other professional program, because it has plenty templates for people with not enough imagination - ahem, skill or training, to do these things on their own. I just finished a job where this customer insists on bringing us his bc on .pub file, which I have to redo everytime because there is this one colored block that comes out screened & is supposed to be solid, and yes, I do have to save out as an eps & place somewhere's else to get seps, in which you can see where that evil screened block would make me scream. But if your work is going to be printed in house, done by a non-GOOD-dtp-program user, she probably should stick with it, but if there is anyway for her to be swayed...PM not user-friendly? That's just what I was thinking about pub&*&*&^*%#$^ last wk...
Oh man, don't get me started on Publisher. Unfortunately, I'm the only person at the plant where I work who's figured out a Publisher workflow that actually works. As Kenneth already noted, the only reliable way to run a Publisher job (in our composite Scitex environment, anyway) is to write composite PostScript, Distill, open the PDF in Acrobat, convert to CMYK or spot colors with Pitstop, and place it in PageMaker, InDesign, or Quark. Only very rarely can I just write PS from Acrobat--since Publisher handles EPS graphics so poorly I usually have to place any EPS elements on top of the PDF in a REAL page layout program.
You want to give your boss some reasons why prepress techs hate it? Here are a few off the top of my head:
LOUSY PostScript output (any strokes, for example, are output as filled boxes, and curves are drawn with up to 50,000 segments).
TERRIBLE color separations (a 100% magenta element, for example, is likely to appear on all plates with white boxes to mask them out on the CYK plates; composite output's just as bad, because it's all RGB).
ATROCIOUS type handling (you can spot a Publisher job from across the room from all the rivers flowing through the text).
A HORRID user interface, despite what your co-worker thinks. (I dare you to figure out where they hide their inadequate color controls, for example). I actually find it easier to to work with Word files than Publisher files, if that tells you anything.
My two cents.... Publisher was made for the at home user with their inkjet printer who has nothing pressing to do. Can it be used for commercial printing? Yes, after a fashion. It even does seperations. But you will get charged more for a Pub file because of the ammount of time it takes to do anything inside publisher. It is difficult to work with, and time comsuming. At our shop, we accept publisher files, but only because we can't affort to turn work away. BUT we charge for every minute.
PM is very user friendly, but it requires the user to actually exert a little effort learning it. If your boss wants to pay someone to twiddle their time away in PUB rather than get PM, that's their business. Myself, I have too much to do to waste my time in PUB. In short, PM is designed for professionals and when used by professionals is much more efficient.
(stepping down from soapbox)
and curves are drawn with up to 50,000 segments).
This seems to be the case whith most Microshaft products attempting vector
output, something to do with the emf/wmf file format.Try cleaning up those
files in illustartor, and your in for a long night.
Take your boss a document (call it an "assignment of liability") which states that if Publisher is used instead of PageMaker, HE is responsible for all cost overruns, unacceptable output, missed deadlines, and evry other ill thing mentioned in this thread. The document should also state that YOU are in no way accountable, and, in fact, are entitled to a $7500 bonus and an extra month of vacation each year as compensation for putting up with such a hare-brained scheme as attempting 4 color process output with Publisher. Have him sign it.
Duplicate and frame the document, place it on your desk, and smile serenely.
Now you could probably print that document in Publisher and print to an inkjet...LOL!
Rather than listing the failings of MS Publisher I recommend you emphasize that those are proposals you're creating. In my experience your company has ONE CHANCE to get past the first hurdle. A poorly designed, badly output proposal looks unprofessional -- and could cost many thousands of dollars in lost contracts. Your boss might never know, but the companies that he deals with would!
You might want to print out this whole thread and include it with a short memo. The posters above, are pros, as you probably already know...
The others who have mentioned type handling are 100% correct. Only PM, Quark or ID will make the type and layout look like it was done professionally.
You Would even be better served by using Star Office - which in a pinch can do a simple 3 column layout with a little trial and error.
Courtney I was once faced with the same problem I got a job where a boss thought it would be alright for me to use Publisher. I was horrified! Here's what I did:
"To see whether my dislike of Microsoft Publisher was simply professional prejudice, I decided to carry out some simple design work using Pagemaker and then do the same job using Microsoft Publisher. I made brief notes of some differences I found between the programs, where this would affect the ability to produce accurate work speedily and efficiently.
1. No screen drag function, as in Pagemaker etc., ALT key
2. No quick zoom in and out. F9 key moves to top of page if no object selected
2a. There is no zoom tool. If an object is selected, the zoom feature takes you to the centre of the object.
2b The program forces you to use frames for everything. They tend to get in the way of viewing the page you are trying to create. Text snaps to the frame around it, not the text itself weird and unworkable. Even if you line up using the frame borders, it sets different frame margins depending on the size of the text! In layout and design, alignment is everything.
2c. In Publisher, tracking works by increasing the width of the letters (rather than the space between them) unbelievable!!!
2d. It's only possible to have one document open at a time. This is very limiting.
2e. There are no European standard sizes to choose from when setting the page size independently from the paper size. When you want to bleed off the page and show crop marks - you are going to have to work out the size of the page and enter the figures in dialog boxes.
3. Property palette measurements do not change interactively
4. No facility to nudge font sizes in decimal increments
5. No facility to nudge font sizes by point units
6. Not enough freedom to combine graphics with text
7. So much handholding leads to rigid formatting limitations, e.g., combining boxes and text. Text frames etc
8. Too much screen clutter
9. Clumsy colour selection using menu choices colour palette. The colour palette is only accessible via menu selections.
10. Quirky application of ruler units and snapping functions. Unable to specify ruler settings.
11. Alignment of text within frames makes accurate typesetting awkward see 2b
12. Lack of keyboard shortcuts and control palette makes simple jobs arduous. Double clicking on appropriate tool in Pagemaker sets that tool's settings
13. No opportunity to set nudge options for resizing objects to correct print dimensions; dimensions have to be typed in. Nudge settings seem to be arbitrary
14. There is no interactive tab-positioning tool. It isn't possible to move tab stops within the dialogue box.
15. No interactive kerning controls. Manual kerning takes place through a menu selection and insertion of a number. Press the apply button in the dialogue box and see the effect, repeat to change!!!
16. UNABLE TO SELECT "UNDER" an object. "Help" suggests sending objects to the back that are in the way!! Unbelievable!
17. Slow resizing pictures and redrawing screen
18. No ability to resize pictures by entering values as per Pagemaker control palette.
19. Drawing a guide across the page to a selected position very difficult, unless you zoom in first.
20. Hide/show guides requires a menu selection. "Ctrl :" on Pagemaker.
21. Both Ruler and Layout guides are hidden behind objects!!
22. Objects disappear when being moved, making it difficult to position accurately.
23. Publisher is unable to process documents correctly via the Postscript driver as follows:-
i) EPS files are not printed correctly
ii) Crop Marks are not printed at all
iii) Banding and fringing very evident on graphic elements
iv) No option to print colour separations
24. There is no automatic "align and distribute facility.
A printer's job is most often to copy a job given to him by a customer. The job has to be done accurately and speedily. Microsoft Publisher does not have these virtues
Microsoft Publisher is unable to produce output that is satisfactory for bureau work.
Microsoft Publisher, at about a fifth of the price of PageMaker, is fine for home use, but cannot be taken seriously as a typesetting and layout tool for printing, even for simple jobs.
12th May 2000"
Hope this helps your case!
Steve Hutton, Lancashire UK
Sorry for the long quoteback, but ... Donald? Could you perhaps get this
into the FAQ?
The question's come up any number of times already, and this is some great
ammunition for people to use in shooting down attacking Dumb Boss Ideas.
Thanks, Steve, for the detailed info!
Steve Rindsberg, RDP
I've removed the complete rewrite of SteveH's excellent comments. Your auotoquote is stuck again! (grin)
My name is Glenn and I work at a high quality commercial sheet fed printing plant. I am also a resident on AllExperts.com and an uncertified MCSE (for credibility sake). I work on MACs and PCs. Unfortunately the sales dept. takes in work done in every application under the sun. One of which is Publisher and the reason for this desperate measure. I get to work on those jobs among all my others. Here is my problem.
The job has been done in the past for many years in various versions of PM; however, this is the first time it was created in Publisher with many elements needing to be picked up from previous years.
I gave Publisher the good old college try! When I got to the second color being a PAN 874 metallic. I found that Publisher does not support metallics. I keyed in the correct CMYK equivalent but SPOT COLOR is not support for CMYK either!
There are thin-fat ovals used for photos as borders. That type of border is not among the choices! I cannot find where to paste inside or mask in a graphic in Publisher! The last straw was: a DCS .eps of Thomas Edison needed to be picked up. That type of .eps is not supported in Publisher either!
MY PROBLEM is this: the job needs to be delivered within the next six days (from Sunday the FEB10). I decided to use the Publisher/Quark converter that came with PM7. The first try converting the entire 36 pages and the application gave me an illegal operation dialogue and crash! I thought it couldnt handle THAT many pages so I proceeded to segment the Publisher file into 10 or so page files. That was not a fun operation either! Enough background! There is only ONE 11 page file with NO pictures ONLY type left to convert and OF COURSE that ONE file continues the illegal instruction message. I am at my wits end! With the impending deadline I will most likely need to RECREATE these pages! Thanks Bill!
The company I work for stands by the quoted price! Whatever it takes to complete the job WE EAT! I hope SOMEone can help me! I copied and pasted the error code just in case there is a programmer who is lurking:
This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
If the problem persists, contact the program vendor.
(Which what Im doing here if someone from Adobe follows these threads)
MSPUBLISHER_QUARK CONVERTER caused an invalid page fault in
module MSPUBLISHER_QUARK CONVERTER.EXE at 0167:0041e8bb.
EAX=00000992 CS=0167 EIP=0041e8bb EFLGS=00010203
EBX=00f1d410 SS=016f ESP=007bf194 EBP=00f1d1a4
ECX=00000264 DS=016f ESI=005910f4 FS=11d7
EDX=00000992 ES=016f EDI=00000000 GS=11c6
Bytes at CS:EIP: f3 a5 8b c8 83 e1 03 f3 a4 8b 0b 51 e8 ee cf 01
0105a0f0 00f1d1a4 01023df0 01023df0 00426d40 007bf1b4 00000000 00000000 00000018 00000000 00000000 007bf338 004657c0 00000000 00431fbd 007bf1e0
Whatever all THAT means!
Don't envy you that job. Suggest you start from scratch in PageMaker. Export the text from Publisher into Word (right click on the text and you'll see an option for this). Save the Word document and place this in your PageMaker document.
As far as I know, Publisher embeds the graphics. You could cut and paste into Photoshop but they'll be pretty ropey. You really need the original image files or pics to scan.
Best of luck
Steve Hutton, Lancashire UK
> MSPUBLISHER_QUARK CONVERTER
There is an update from either July or December last year at:
"Updated Converter for MS Publisher/QuarkXPress 12/7/2001"
I don't know if you've used it or if will resolve your problem, but it if works
it'll save you a lot of trouble.
Iechyd da! John
Written at Sun, 10 Feb 2002 22:57 GMT, probably posted later.
Thanks to everyone for all your help! I printed this all out and gave it to my boss, so hopefully it works. Another big point to me is that we all have licensed copies of PM on our computers, why shouldn't everyone learn to use it instead of Publisher? We've already invested multiple thousands of dollars to buy the program, what a waste to not use it. And wouldn't you want your employees to learn to use the best program available for the task anyway?
Well, I was going to add my two cents until I read Steve H.'s comments and he has pretty much covered it. I use both only because some people I work with are afraid of PageMaker. And so I am forced to mess around with Publisher. PageMaker is hands down a better program. I use PageMaker for just about everything I do because it is so much EASIER than using Publisher. If I use Publisher I have to spend extra time trying to get it to even attempt to do what is a piece of cake in PageMaker. What is amazing to me is that one person whose comfort zone is limited to Publisher can control a decision of a company that could do so much more using something better like PageMaker. The line of reasoning about being "user-friendly" just does not make sense. That's like saying we shouldn't use digital cameras just because the disposable cameras are so much more user-friendly. Or maybe we should keep using IBM selectrics because they're more user-friendly than a PC. Or maybe we should ride bicycles because automobiles are not as user-friendly. Sorry to be so strong here - it's really out of character for me, but I guess this just pushed one of those buttons that is hard to find but was there and I didn't even know it. Bottom line, Courtney - keep fighting for PageMaker. Your company will be better for it. What you produce will look so much better as a result.
...or maybe we should employ imbeciles because they are user friendly.....
As a general rule I like MS products, they are easy to use and as an IT manager that gives me less grief, I think that Pagemaker is definately the choice of the professional, however we must all keep in mind the needs of the average business users. These end users need things simple, and cheap for the masses. Publisher would work really well for the end user if MS and Adobe simply got there heads together and made their products fully compatible. A simple interface for the end user and a fully featured Pagemaker style interface for the professionals. Adobe and MS if you are listening, I would be the first to sign up to buy a cut down simple publishing tool compatible with Pagemaker/commercial printing for all my non DTP end users !
You are missing one point. I agree that many of MS's products are user friendly. I use Word and Excel frequently, for the purposes they were designed for. I use Word to type a quick letter or memo, PM would be overkill in that situation. I use Excel for spreadsheets. I don't try to convert my Excel spreadsheets into Word just because some people can't figure out Excel and would rather work on them in Word.
Publisher has it's purpose, which is small office or home use to print off pre-designed (by Microsloth) pubs. Pm has a purpose, and that is high end professional prepress output. It is a desktop publishing program. Publisher, in this sense, is a toy. If you have to design anything outside of the lines in the pub, it is an experience that can give you gray hairs. believe me, I have enough gray hairs.
As far as ease of use? I have taught myself all of what I know. I picked up PM within the first couple days and was able to design professional quality docs with little problem. I have NEVER been able to do anything in Publisher without breaking down and cursing vehemently at the program for not letting me do what I want and for overriding my decisions. but that is just me :-)
Anyway... I digressed from my point. The two programs are designed for 2 completely different purposes, and just as it would not make sense to convert Excel docs to Word, the same is true of Publisher and PM. The 2 programs are designed from the base up completely differently.
Your anger at Adobe for professional PM documents not being easily converted to MS should be directed at Bill Gates, whose Publisher is obviously at fault for not decoding and converting PM docs. Adobe DID go the extra mile and provide some sort of ability in PM to open and convert Pub docs.
Anyway... this is not really a flame.. just my opinion :-p
I would venture to say that anyone who has used both PageMaker and Publisher to design a page with graphics/pictures and text will tell you that PageMaker is an easier program to use. Even the average business user will find it easier to use. The interface for PM is not any more complicated than Publisher. I just think people who don't know how to use it are afraid of it. I learned PageMaker in three hours with a friend showing me how to use the different tools. The rest I learned on my own with a book and experience. The same with Publisher. Publisher is much more complicated when it comes to laying out a page. You cannot move things around as easily. In Publisher you have to move your mouse around on an element until it has the "move" symbol appear. You can also move using Alt and the arrows in Publisher. But how many people know the keyboard commands? In PM all you have to do is select it with your mouse and drag it. Or select and use the arrows. You cannot put elements on top of each other with ease in Publisher. Text in a box begins to disappear if it gets close to a photo. This is maddening to anyone who uses Publisher. The only way to get around it is to make your text boxes transparent. Then you have half a chance of being able to put the elements in close proximity with each other. In PM this is not even a question or problem. The people I work with who design a newsletter in Publisher always bring it to me so I can fix it. Moral to this story in answer to the original question: Stick with PageMaker.
Thank you for your comments Carl, I think that if anything, MS are greatly at fault for a lot of problems in the computing world, not just this one, and they dont do anything to help the situation. I simply think that there is a vast market of end users that Adobe can easily tap into with a cheaper package built around Pagemaker that has all the simplicity of publisher. That way the end user can do the basic layouts and text and the professionals can make the ammendments to the colour balancing etc. without any of the usual hassles of Publisher files.
Pagemaker Lite, anyone? :-)
Actually I think that is the direction Adobe is going with InDesign for the pro's and Pagemaker for the business user.
I think the main problem with Microsoft is they, in their little world over there, decide how programs should operate and expect everyone else to conform to their decisions rather than listening to what their customers want. Plus their quest for all the money on the planet. They are not above saying that Publisher can be used for professional design to sell more product, when all the professionals know that isn't true.
Are you saying that MicroSloth would actually misrepresent their products? *grin*
I have to give credit where it is due.. when I got into this business, new computers cost around $3000, nobody had them in their homes, Apple was resisting making affordable systems, Linux was just a twinkle in Linus's eyes.. and based mostly on BS and hijacked code Bill Gates made home computing affordable. Now one can walk into Best Buys and plunk down $600 and walk out with a complete system. MS is largely responsible, with their dumbed down operating systems and programs, for this phenomena. At least that is how I see it.
Today you can build a system, and for free put any of 15 flavors of linux, BeOS, BDS, or buy a Mac at an affordable price. There are alternatives. Don't want to plunk down $700 for MS Office? StarOffice is free, and a very competent program. And.. no &#!%@ talking paperclips!
In the end, MS will have to listen, or lose market share. But I digress......
>Donald? Could you perhaps get this
into the FAQ?
SteveR, sorry, I was gone and have just got around to seeing this. Indeed, an excellent idea for the FAQ; it comes up all the time, and here it's already written out for me. Will get to it soon along with a few others I've promised...
I would use PageMaker. Heck, I'd use Word before Publisher, because if I were in that market, I'd want something more ubiquitous.
However, with Color Chameleon and if you produce PostScript files or PDF, then Publisher should do fine from your service bureau or printer.
I dislike sending source files to my printer.
And, note, my understanding is (unless it's changed for PM 7, I only have 6.5) that PageMaker in Windows suffers RGB limitations for the same reasons as Publisher, Word, and FrameMaker: they use the Windows GDI.
>PageMaker in Windows suffers RGB limitations
Curious as to what RGB limitations you're referring to...PM files separate to CMYK with no problem...are you referring to the on-screen display of placed CMYK TIFs? Or something else?
My printer recently told me that in Publisher, placed CMYK files are automatically reverted to RGB mode within the program, causing additional headaches for output. Yet another reason Publisher makes me want to bash my head into a wall repeatedly.
So here I am 6 months later and my boss has JUST decided that MAYBE I'm right and PageMaker is actually better software than Publisher! This revelation came about after he started noticing all the Publisher-related problems and time overruns. For example, our logo, in eps format, prints blurry on our branch office's postscript HP printer from Publisher, but prints perfectly from PageMaker.
I'm going to start training people in PM next week! Yay! Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go? There are some people here who are convinced that PM is too hard and not "friendly" like Publisher--despite all the evidence I've shown them to the contrary.
>>Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go? There are some people here who are convinced that PM is too hard and not "friendly" like Publisher--despite all the evidence I've shown them to the contrary.
How about tape recording them working in Publisher. It might shound like this:
damn it, ^%#@$, *&^$%##, what the %$$# is this thing doing! ^%#$^, ^$#
>Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go?
Click "Show All Messages" in this thread then print it out...this is the best Pub vs PM collection I've ever seen...
Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go?
Let them work in pagemaker a few days and then tell them to do a job in publisher. Instant converts.
Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go?
Let them work in pagemaker a few days and then tell them to do a job in publisher. Instant converts.
>>Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go?
Make them pay the printer for all the extra work he is going to have to do to make the Publisher file printable....
> Does anyone have any suggestions about convincing Publisher lovers that PM is the way to go?
And don't forget that although both PM and MSPub convert documents to pretty awful HTML, at
least PM keeps text as text!
Iechyd da! John
Written at Sat, 24 Aug 2002 02:38 +0100, probably posted later.
>>And don't forget that although both PM and MSPub convert documents to pretty awful HTML, at least PM keeps text as text!
Looks like Publisher wins hands down for the crummy HTML contest!
Personally, I prefer Quark. I hate Pagemaker and only use it because I have to.
>Personally, I prefer Quark. I hate Pagemaker and only use it because I have to.
I feel the same way about Liver.....