Consumer Report
      Desktop Publishing Platforms
               Open Forum
          dBASE IV Version 1.1 Feedback
                Report #12

                May 1991
       PC Technology Assessment Program
       EPA National Data Processing Division   $
       Information Centers Branch - RIC II, MD-35 I
       Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
       Telephone: (919) 541-0568 (FTS) 629-0568
                                   Printed on Recycled Paper

-------
                             PC TAP CONSUMER REPORTS
From the Editor's Desk
For several years, the Macintosh has been the preferred operating platform for those involved with desktop
publishing.  The Mac's graphical user interface, and the characteristics of software written  for the
Macintosh operating environment, had a lot to do with that preference. Although Ventura Publisher, Aldus
PageMaker, and other desktop publishing products were available for MS-DOS machines, it was only with
the release of Microsoft Windows 3.0 that IBM compatibles posed a serious challenge to the Mac as a
desktop publishing platform. In this Consumer Report we will examine the viability of DOS/Windows as
an operating environment for prominent desktop publishing software.

Speaking of Windows, the wave of enthusiasm in the industry for this product hasn't lost much momentum
since the release of version 3.0 a year ago.  COMDEX is generally recognized as the premier computer
hardware/software show, and Windows 3.0 was everywhere at COMDEX Fall '90. Concurrently with the
Spring 1991 edition of COMDEX, the show's promoters are initiating the first Windows World Conference,
a meeting devoted exclusively to presentations and exhibits  pertaining  to Microsoft Windows,  and to
products that run in or support the Windows environment.  We will try  to keep the evolving Windows
picture in focus, and to keep you informed of developments in that arena.

This issue's Open Line contains feedback from one of our readers about the report on dBASE IV Version
1.1  that appeared in the last Consumer Report. Bill Samuel obviously is a knowledgeable dBASE user
who has become very  familiar  with the product.  We're pleased to include his comments for your
consideration.

Barring any unexpected changes of plan, our next issue will contain a potpourri of items. Some will be
status updates of topics we've reported on in the past, while others will address interesting developments
in desktop computing that may  not warrant treatment as full-blown PC TAP projects.  We're looking
forward to compiling the information for that report, and we hope you'll enjoy reading it.

                                                                     David A. Taylor
                                                                     PC TAP Coordinator

-------
                         Desktop Publishing Platforms

 Introduction	

 Since  the  introduction last  year of  Microsoft Windows 3.0,  80386-based  IBM computers and
 compatibles have begun to make inroads into the desktop publishing (DTP) market.  Although the
 Macintosh was once considered by many to be toe operating platform for serious desktop publishing
 applications, some users now are suggesting that the MS-DOS/Windows 3.0 environment is a viable
 alternative. The primary purpose of this PC TAP project was to investigate the validity of this claim
 by DOS/Windows enthusiasts.

                               What is Desktop Publishing?

 Although advertisements for word processing software often suggest that the product is capable of
 desktop publishing, and some of them come very close, true desktop publishing is more  than just
 fancy word processing. While some word processing packages provide capabilities to format multiple
 columns and incorporate pictures, tables, and graphs, the critical element they lack is page layout.
 Page layout is the process of designing the physical characteristics (dimensions, position and size of
 text elements and graphics) of a printed page before the typographical elements are placed on that
 page.  Page layout is to publishing, or typography, what blueprints are to builders.  The page layout
 identifies the elements of the printed  page, indicates their dimensions, and shows the  compositor
 where  those elements are to be located.

 While some word processing packages may try to  pass themselves off as desktop publishers, the
 reverse isn't so. at least not until Story Editor appeared in the recently-released PageMaker Version
 4.0, which is presently available only for the Macintosh.  DTP software is designed to assemble text
 and graphics, not produce them. So the recommended  approach is to prepare text in a word
 processor, and do spell checking and final proofreading (but not formatting) before importing the text
 into the DTP package. Similarly,  pictures and graphs are produced in a graphics package  or are
 captured with a scanner, then imported into DTP.

 Within  the desktop publishing environment, a document's textual and graphical components can be
 manipulated.   A number of text-formatting capabilities are available, including font and point size
 selection, specification of columns, and definition of tables.  A DTP text-processing function that
 usually isn't available in word processors is leading control—that is, adjustable inter-line spacing. Most
 DTP packages offer a text-editing capability, but it is recommended that text  changes of any
 magnitude be done in the word processor. With respect to graphics, usually it is possible to crop
 images, and to rotate and size them. Like text, however, it is recommended that if significant changes
 become necessary, they be made  in the graphics software and a revised image imported.

 Desktop publishing is not necessarily an easy-to-learn skill.  Like most complex, highly-specialized
 applications, DTP has a unique vocabulary and a set of operating assumptions that many people find
 foreign at best and completely unfathomable at worst. The learning curve for DTP is fairly steep, and
 unless  you're going to be using it regularly, we think it would be difficult to remember the finer points
of usage.  If a word processor will  do the job,  you probably won't want to spend the time and effort
to become proficient with a DTP package.  On the other hand, if your application heavily mixes text
and graphics  and really requires a DTP package, nothing  else will do—and you'll consider every
minute  you devoted to learning one very well spent indeed.

-------
 Evaluation Methodology
 When microcomputers first began to appear in EPA, a major justification for providing a mechanism
 to purchase Macintoshes was for use in desktop publishing. At the time, software available in the MS-
 DOS world simply could not compete with the Macintosh for DTP.  To determine  to what extent the
 gap has been closed, we set out to answer this question:

              "Can the Macintosh desktop publishing environment that would typically be found
              within EPA be replicated in the MS DOS/Windows 3.0 environment?'

 We decided to approach the question by setting up equivalent operating configurations on roughly
 comparable machines: a Macintosh  II, and an  IBM PS/2 Model 70.  A "typical DTP software
 configuration" in each environment was defined as containing most or all of these products:
Software Package
PageMaker
Ventura Publisher
WordPerfect
MS Word
Aldus Freehand
Adobe Illustrator
CorelDRAW
MacDraw
MS PowerPoint
MS-DOS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Macintosh
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Because we expected that few facilities would have comparable Macintosh and IBM-compatible
machines configured with the software required to perform this evaluation, we decided to conduct this
study as an internal PC TAP project. That is, rather than emphasizing participation from outside users
as is our usual practice, the contributors to this study were "insiders."  Participants included the PC
TAP staff;  Pam Worley,  of the  NDPD  Publications staff in  RTP;  Paul Cooper, an RTP  LAN
administrator  and longtime user  of Ventura Publisher; and Dave Levesque, of the  Washington
Information Center staff, who has lots of experience with DTP and graphics software on both MS-DOS
and Macintosh computers.  Pam and the TAP staff performed the actual tests.  Dave and Paul served
as advisors and general information sources.

On a daily basis, Pam Worley uses a Macintosh to produce documents of varying complexity. In PC
TAP, on the  other hand,  we're  at home in  MS-DOS/Windows.   We decided to compose five
representative documents in both  environments in RTP: a brochure, a technical publication, a flyer,
a form,  and a newsletter or magazine.  Our plan was to re-create the five test documents in both
computing environments: PC TAP would compose each one on the Macintosh with some help from
Pam; then Pam would repeat the process on our PS/2 Model 70 while we watched and critiqued.
During  the  process, we  would carefully record  our  successes, failures, and  any problems we

-------
 encountered. This strategy proved to be very effective (but it also resulted in "overkill," as we'll explain
 later), and we felt that by following it the effects of our individual preferences and biases on the
 evaluation results were minimized.

                                Focusing on the Objective

 One final note about the evaluation methodology. In addition to remembering that our objective was
 to determine whether we could replicate the Mac DTP environment in MS-DOS/Windows, it's important
 also to keep in mind that we were NOT out to compare DTP software products or describe how to do
 desktop publishing.  We were not trying to compare MS Word with WordPerfect. Neither were we
 evaluating the capabilities of CorelDRAW with Adobe Illustrator and Aldus Freehand in mind. And we
 weren't comparing PageMaker with Ventura Publisher. Neither were we trying to decide whether one
 platform (PS/2 vs Mac) was "easier to use" or faster or more desirable.  Our goal was  to determine
 whether the functions or capabilities that are available for desktop publishing on the Macintosh can
 also be found in the MS DOS/Windows environment.

 Now that we've made clear that we recognized the necessity to maintain our objectivity, we must also
 acknowledge that we liked some products and some methods better than others, and we'll point out
 those preferences as we go along. We'll talk about what we liked or didn't like about certain products,
 and will give our impressions, based on our experiences using them in this evaluation. But when it
 comes time to state the results of the study, we will remind ourselves again to do so within the scope
 of the primary question we set out to answer.

                               The Hardware Configurations

 A Macintosh II with two megabytes of memory and a 40MB hard drive running under System 6.03 was
 used in this project.  An Apple LaserWriter I INT PostScript printer, an external 51/4-inch disk drive, and
 a flatbed scanner are attached to the  Mac. Our IBM  PS/2 Model 70 has a  386 microprocessor, 6
 megabytes of memory, a 60MB hard drive, a 44MB Bernoulli drive, an external 5Vi-inch disk drive, an
 Apple  LaserWriter Plus PostScript printer, and a ScanMan Plus handheld scanner.  For this project,
 on the PS/2 we ran exclusively within Microsoft Windows under MS DOS 3.3.

 The Evaluation Study

 The PC TAP brochure, several pages from the NCC  Guide  to Services (technical publication), an
 Email  flyer, an Email box  application form,  and pages  from  a  PC  TAP Consumer Report
 (newsletter/magazine) comprised our five "test" documents.  Initially, we thought we'd reproduce each
 of the five documents on both the Mac and the PS/2 using all the pertinent software. Our plan was
 to treat each test document as an original, and to  reproduce each one  in the most practical and
 straightforward manner possible.  After we had what we considered to be an acceptable document,
 we would try other tools and methods just to compare products and techniques.

 Early in the project we realized that our original approach would not only be time-consuming and
 redundant, but probably extremely tedious as well. We quickly learned that the  same basic steps were
 required to re-create each document, and that in essence we were performing different  variations of
the same process for each document.  As a result, we decided after completing two documents that
it was unnecessary to continue with the remaining three. Instead, we experimented with importing
graphics from different environments and with moving elements from the Macintosh  to the MS-DOS
environment.  Our experiences are discussed in the  following pages.

-------
                                     The Technical Document
As you may recall, our technical document consisted of several pages (actually the first four) from the
Guide to NCC Services, a reference manual that was developed primarily for users of the NCC
mainframe.   The Guide  had  originally been prepared  on the  Macintosh.   The four pages are
reproduced  below.
          WHAT IS 1HE NCC?
                                                                             f"! 1. «Ti 
                   MahMjl^rfViMMmt
                   imuMn»i. IWbnJ
                         7.4™,.,^.I. „
            UW&WM   £!LSSc"i,'i^5lis"
                             OtatalMIt-
                         	^M^«i«ui,B
                         m«f_MU~ £*»•«.
                      pita  I i il ««<» >•< i"*i
            HIM.    'ro'M'1TfS!lfi!j!!'i>'jm!!i
            j~;     iSf£^u. +****. iu.1.
                                                                                i i-m ftnrr'ff 3.1*—^
                                                                                     -
     iDUASAU hMM.
     HM

uOM,tmMi-mi*,*K


Hiuu0mn**tl*i f

-------
On the Mac.  To begin, PC TAP worked at the Mac while Pam watched and helped. We used
PageMaker, which for us was a new experience, to lay out the document. Text and graphics were
imported from MS Word and MacDraw files, where they had been stored during composition of the
original manual.

We found PageMaker easy to  use and intuitive on the Macintosh.  The side-by-side page layout
screen was helpful, and setting up master pages that prescribed the format for both left- and right-hand
pages helped get our mental image of the document into a tangible form. Once our grid lines (used
for placing text and graphics, but invisible on the printed page) were laid out, placement of text and
graphics was quick and easy. We imported the MS Word body text that runs down the right side of
each page; type faces and sizes can be specified or changed easily using the pull-down Type menu.
We used PageMaker's text editor to enter the large, underlined heading at the top of the first page and
the smaller headers in the left-hand column of each page opposite the running text. The map graphic
is an imported MacDraw image, and it was easy to place and size, too.

The most tedious part of the task was working out the page layout; as we said earlier, the "desktop
publishing" aspect of the task requires some understanding of DTP terms and concepts. There's also
a terminology aspect to the software, which isn't at all unusual. For example, PageMaker and Ventura
Publisher sometimes use different terms to refer to the same process; or in other cases a given term
may mean different things in each of those two products.  Nevertheless, once  the page layout was
defined, creating the headers and importing and formatting the text and graphics was straightforward
and quick. The printed result of our efforts could not be distinguished from the original document.


On the PS/2.  We viewed the  move to the PS/2 as  the acid test.  It was one thing to  re-create a
document on the Mac that was  originally prepared on the same machine with the same software we
used  for the re-creation,  with  a  person experienced  in  DTP monitoring the  action.  Asking  the
Macintosh expert to perform the same task on the PS/2 with help from a DTP  neophyte was an
entirely different proposition.

Pam sat down at the machine, and we gave her a quick tutorial on Windows.  She double-clicked on
the PageMaker icon, played  around a little bit, and had the page layout completed in record time.
Bringing in the text was a snap, as was entering the headers.  It was just like  doing it on the Mac.
There were a couple of very subtle differences that we attributed more to the difference in PageMaker
versions than to PC/Mac differences (we used PageMaker 4.0 on the Macintosh, and version 3.1 on
the PS/2).

The only problem we encountered was that although  the graphic file containing the map had a TIP
extension, it wasn't really a TIFF file and PageMaker refused to import it. After a couple of trial-and-
error attempts to give the file an extension that PageMaker would handle, we just used the handheld
scanner to create a new TIFF file that was. brought in with no trouble at all.

When we printed the four pages and compared them with the  output from the Macintosh,  it was
impossible to tell which was which. It's important to note here, though, that both our Mac and our
PS/2 were outputting to Apple LaserWriter printers.  Based on our first test, we agreed that within the
PageMaker environment there are no significant differences between running on the Macintosh and
running on the PS/2 under Windows, except for the expected file-name rules variations.

-------
 Trying Other Options.   Flushed with success, we set out to experiment with variations on the
 process.  But after a couple of frustrating hours spent trying to duplicate our four test pages in Ventura
 Publisher on the PS/2, we decided the expertise of a seasoned Ventura user was necessary.  Paul
 Cooper spent a half-hour performing the desired task while we watched and learned. Observing a real
 person certainly is a better way to learn than by plodding through a tutorial, no matter how well the
 tutorial is done.  We picked up more from Paul in  a short time than we  had in days reading the
 documentation and working our way through the tutorial lessons. Don't get us wrong, we're advocates
 of tutorials; but they can't compare with learning from another human being who's experienced in the
 process or  product you're trying to learn.

 Paul's approach was to do as much  up-front preparation as possible  before turning the text over to
 Ventura for final formatting. Ventura uses a system of "tags" that identify the characteristics of various
 "paragraphs" of text.  In this context, Ventura considers a block of text set off by hard returns a
 paragraph.   A tag contains attributes like type face, point size,  and justification (flush left, centered,
 etc.). For example,  the headline tag in the first line of the example below specifies Helvetica bold 14-
 point type.  You define tags for major titles, subheads, body text, and any other special situations you
 want to allow for.  The setup  for bulleted text items with hanging indents is a good example of
 something for which you might want  to set up a tag.

 When you're working with  Ventura, it's recommended that you do as much preparation as possible in
 the word  processing program, short of including formatting codes. You have the option of imbedding
 Ventura tags into the text in your word processing program, by setting them off with at-signs and equal
 signs.  Here's the first page of text for the technical document as prepared by Paul in WordPerfect:

               ©HEADLINE  = WHAT IS THE NCC?
               @SUBHEAD = MISSION
               The National  Computer Center (NCC) is one of the largest, most modem, high-speed
               computer centers in the nation. Its mission is to support the Environmental Protection Agency
               in the area of scientific and administrative applications. The NCC serves EPA users and other
               qualified agencies and contractors through a vast telecommunications network which allows
               the distribution of computer services to remote locations. Along with hardware and software,
               and the means to communicate data, the NCC provides user support and problem solving
               services.
               The major operations center of the NCC is in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina.
               The RTP facility has three principal data processing capabilities:
               @BULLET INDENT = IBM-compatible mainframes.
               ©BULLET INDENT = DEC minisystem operation.
               @BULLET INDENT = Micro/mainframe support for uploading and downloading  data on
               personal computers.

 Any text segments beginning with  the "@" sign and ending with  " = " are handled as text tags by
 Ventura.  When the text is imported,  each paragraph will take on  the attributes of the specified tag.
 The actual tag attributes are set up within Ventura; this is accomplished by working through a series
 of menu boxes in which the user specifies type face, point size,  style (bold, italic, etc.) and rule lines
 or boxes,  if  desired.   When the tagged text shown above is imported into Ventura from WordPerfect,
 the headline, subhead, and bullet indent tags are automatically  selected from the Ventura "tag list,"
 and  their attributes are applied to the appropriate paragraphs.

 A  tag can also be applied to a paragraph manually.  To do  this, simply highlight  the  paragraph
 (remember, a paragraph is a text segment bounded by hard returns—it  can be one line or a complete
paragraph), then click on one of the tag names that is listed in the "tags" box that Ventura supplies.
The  example at the top of  the next page shows the first page of our test document with the tag box
and  the tools box visible in the top right corner of the screen.

-------
                                                                     Body Text
                                                                     Bullet Indent
                                                                     Headline
                                                                     Subhead
                                                                     SubSubhead
                               WHAT IS THE NOC?
                                              The National Conputer Center (NCC) is one of the largest,
                                              most modem, high-speed computer centers in inanition. Its
                                              mission is to support the Envirotramital Pro t action Agency
                                              in the area of scientific and administrative applications The
                                              NCC saves ERA users  and other qualified igencies and
                                              contiacton through a vast telecommunications network
                                              which allows the di stribution of computer services to remote
                                              locutions. Along with hardware and software, and the means
                                Technical Document In Ventura Publisher,
                                    Tools and Tags Boxes Displayed
In contrast with Ventura's tags, in PageMaker a pull-down menu provides the means to select text
attributes.  Below, the figure on the left shows the  Type menu with Type specs" selected. On the
right,  you  see  the result of that selection:  the text attributes specification screen.   These two
significantly different methods for controlling the  physical attributes of text clearly illustrate the
contrasting approaches used by the creators of PageMaker and Ventura Publisher. When you use
these two  products,  you  realize  that becoming proficient  in  them requires two  entirely different
mindsets. The products don't "think or act alike" in many ways, but on the other hand nearly identical
results can be achieved with them.
                         canter of ttxs NCC it s>

-------
                                      The Brochure

 For our second test case, we chose a brochure that describes the PC
 Technology Assessment Program. The original brochure was created in the
 MS-DOS  environment by preparing  the text in WordPerfect and doing
 manual cut-and-paste to incorporate the graphics elements. It's printed in
 landscape orientation on 81/2x11-inch paper, then tri-folded to make the
 8'/2x3%-inch, pocket-size brochure shown at the right.

 Since our original methodology worked so well with the  Guide  to NCC
 Services,  we  used the same approach with the  brochure.  The only
 difference was we were working PS/2-to-Mac, rather than the other way
 around. Again, re-creating the document in the original  environment was
 easy.  The layout was set up in PageMaker, then the  original text was
 imported from WordPerfect.  After a little tweaking of bullets and  hanging
 indents, we had a satisfactory replicate of the original brochure.

To move the document to the Mac, we saved the WordPerfect text file on
 a floppy disk in WordPerfect format. Next we went to the Mac, set up the
page  layout,  and imported the  text.   Finally, we scanned the graphics
directly into the Mac and imported the .TIP images into the document.
KTKhidoayAmaimalPragnin
IP* Milotil on PneMMg DMiton
Mtnmta GMHI mnu • me i. HMD
Immediately we began to have more trouble than we had experienced with the Guide to NCC
Services. Although we had learned not to expect bullets to translate properly, we also discovered that
the tabs and hard returns used to control line breaks in the bulleted text segments in the original
document had to be stripped out. This was done in MS Word on the Mac, then the text was re-
imported into PageMaker. Things looked better, but now we had hyphenated text along with  the
bullets, and aesthetically unpleasant line lengths.  Cleaning up this problem required more formatting
in PageMaker.

The final result was a page that looked just like the original, but it took a lot of text editing to get there.
Considering the effort required to get the text in shape, the process of  scanning and placing  the
graphics was a piece of cake.  Both sides of the brochure are reproduced below.

                            AEFA
                                                                               »•»•••» Mv

-------
 At the end of this rather tedious exercise, we realized that in PageMaker we could have re-entered
 the small amount of text contained in the brochure in a fraction of the time it took to import and
 massage the original. It's not always quicker and easier to import text (or graphics, for that matter)
 just because it exists somewhere.  We recommend you consider how much effort it will be to simply
 re-enter the text when you're faced with such a decision.  If the amount of text isn't significant, it might
 be easier to just re-enter it in the environment in which you are working.

                                    A Procedural Shift

 As we mentioned earlier, some key issues became obvious fairly early in  our testing.  The  most
 important is that, although every document has its own distinctive features, the same basic steps are
 involved in the DTP process. You decide on a page layout, and then bring text and graphics into that
 environment. Some limited text entry can be done in the desktop publisher—the setting of headlines
 is a case in point—but the more you import from a word processing program, the better off you
 probably will be.  Except for draw-type figures, which can be done within most DTP products, graphics
 too should be prepared externally for subsequent placement into the desktop publishing environment.

 Having essentially gone through these basic steps with the technical document and the brochure, we
 elected not to repeat it with the remainder of the five original test documents we had identified.  The
 results would have looked different, but we would have gone through the same steps to produce them.
 Instead, we began experimenting with graphics imports into both PageMaker and Ventura, and with
 moving both graphics and text between the Macintosh and PS/2 environments.

                                     Software Issues

 When discussing software we must remember that our objective wasn't to evaluate software products
 used in desktop  publishing; neither was it to judge whether the Mac or the  PC is a better desktop
 publishing machine. Our stated objective was to determine whether the "typical" Macintosh desktop
 publishing environment could be replicated in the DOS/Windows environment. For our purposes, the
 software comprising those environments was listed in the table on page 3.

 Based on our experience, the desktop publishing package is the key to what you can or can't do.
 Excellent graphics software, including paint and draw packages, is available in both the Mac and  DOS
 environments. Certainly there are differences in the ways some of the Macintosh packages work when
 compared with their DOS counterparts.  But the capabilities are there  to do anything  in  one
 environment that you can do in  the other.  Text is no problem  at all, with WordPerfect and Word
 available on both machines.

 PageMaker has been the Macintosh  DTP package of choice  around EPA for some time.   DOS
versions of both PageMaker and Ventura Publisher have  been available, but the Windows version of
Ventura is new. The first ever Macintosh version of Ventura Publisher was announced very recently,
but too late for us to include in this study. On the other hand, PageMaker 4.0 for the Macintosh was
used in this study, but we used release 3.1 of the DOS version of PageMaker; version 4.0 has since
been announced.  For this study we used both versions 3.1 and 4.0 of PageMaker on the Macintosh,
and Version 3.1 of PageMaker and the new Windows version of Ventura Publisher on the PS/2. Since
Ventura Publisher hasn't been available for the Mac, it wasn't essential for our objective in this study,
but we included some discussion of Ventura to enrich the data for this report.
                                           10

-------
 We found that equivalent results can be achieved using either Ventura Publisher or PageMaker under
 DOS/Windows, or using PageMaker on the Macintosh.  We mentioned earlier that different approaches
 are used in these two DTP products. We're not in a position to say one is better than the other; but
 they are different. We think it's another of those "different strokes for different folks" situations. Those
 who are serious about desktop publishing should probably look at both packages and select the one
 whose personality best fits that of the user.  Although  Ventura is said to be the more powerful of the
 two products, we found  PageMaker to  be more intuitive and easy to use.  Certainly PageMaker is
 easier to learn. There's more discussion about these two products on the following page under "Media
 Reports."

                                     Hardware Issues

 At the outset of this project, we expected that hardware differences would be the most significant
 obstacle between the Macintosh and the PS/2 (or any other DOS machine). That's probably true, but
 certainly not to any troublesome extent.  The walls between the two environments seem to be
 shrinking with time, as better file translators and conversion routines become available. Indeed, many
 Mac software products now have a "DOS format" save option built in.

 We didn't experience any problems using text or graphics files on the PS/2 that had been created on
 the Mac, then saved in DOS format on diskettes using the Apple File Exchange translators. As an
 acid test,  we transferred a newsletter-like PageMaker document from the Mac to the PS/2.  The
 document contained various fonts and type sizes, rules, and graphics.  When we brought it up in
 PageMaker on the PS/2, everything was intact except the graphic image, which showed up as a solid
 black box.  However, when the graphic was moved independently, then placed into the document, it
 looked fine. We repeated this with .EPS, .TIP, and .PCX files. With the exception of the graphics, the
 Mac-to-DOS/Windows transfer of a completely  finished document was flawless.

 The most significant complaints that surfaced during our study were procedural in nature:  Mac users
 don't like "the way the PC works with all those  colons and back-slashes," and those at home in the
 DOS/Windows world get lost among the Mac's files, folders, and trash cans.  Such differences are
 inherent in the two environments; they're facts of computer life that one must learn to deal with. The
 good news is that their significance seems to be diminishing steadily with new releases of software.

 Conclusions

 Our conclusions can be stated very succinctly: we found that on a PS/2 Model 70 running PageMaker
 under Windows we could easily replicate documents that originated in Macintosh PageMaker. We re-
 created Mac originals in PC PageMaker, and we re-created  PC original documents on the Mac. No
 problems.   We also moved text and graphics  back and forth between the Mac and the PC and
 imported the elements into PageMaker documents with excellent success.  Converted Mac text and
 graphics files were also moved into Ventura Publisher documents on the PC with ease.

 Desktop publishing documents contain elements from  three sources: text (from a word processor);
 graphics (from a graphics package); and headlines, rules, and line-draw graphic elements  created in
 the DTP software itself.  Excellent software is  available in both the Macintosh and  DOS/Windows
 environments with which  to create text and graphics elements that are compatible with PageMaker in
 both environments. It is reasonable to expect that the same  will be true of Ventura Publisher; but as
we stated earlier, Ventura isn't part of the equation that addresses the question we set out to answer
in this study.


                                           11

-------
With respect to PageMaker, we found that with a few rather insignificant exceptions (unless you
consider the file-naming conventions significant), once you're within PageMaker you almost forget
which  machine you're working on.   Macintosh PageMaker and  DOS/Windows  PageMaker are
essentially the same. And yes, you can replicate the typical EPA Macintosh DTP environment under
DOS/Windows.
 Media Reports	

 It was a pleasant coincidence that several relevant reports appeared in major industry publications
 around the time this study was being planned and conducted. The March 1991  issue of Macworld
 included a "critical comparison of the Macintosh and IBM PC worlds" in an article entitled "Mac vs.
 PC."  One aspect of the article was a discussion of software packages that have versions for both
 environments.  Here is a quotation:

              At this writing, PageMaker 4.0 isnt available for PCs, so the Mac version wins.
              When PC PageMaker 4.0 becomes available (it should be by the time you read
              this), it'll be a toss-up; Aldus has always done a superb job in making the Mac and
              PC versions look and work alike ... (p. 125).

 The April  1 edition of  PC Week featured an account of the "PC Week Labs Shoot-Out: Windows
 Desktop Publishing."   The event took place on March 6 at the Windows & OS/2 Conference in San
 Jose, California. Three DTP software vendors, Xerox (Ventura Publisher 3.0 Windows Edition), Aldus
 Corporation (PageMaker Version 4.0 for Windows), and Archetype Inc. (Archetype Designer) fielded
 teams that competed to create an eight-page newsletter provided by PC Week Labs. Although the
 judges selected Ventura Publisher the winner  of the competition, PageMaker was ruled a "close
 second."

 More  pertinent to our purposes here were some of the comments from users of the software that
 competed in the shoot-out.  For the past four years, PIP Printing, Inc., a national chain of quick printing
 outlets, has standardized on  PageMaker.  They say that approximately half of their stores run
 PageMaker on Macintoshes, while the others half runs it on PCs.  Deborah Juhasz, an analyst at
 Chevron Information Technology Co. in San Ramon, Calif., said "... we have a mixture of PCs and
 Macs. We settled on PageMaker partly because it allowed cross-platform compatibility" (p. 81). She
 noted that the ability to exchange documents between PCs and Macs was a selling point for the
 program.


 Implications

The most impressive thing we learned from this project was that the whole Mac-PC  compatibility issue
wasn't nearly as big a problem as we expected  it to  be. Learning enough about all the software we
dealt  with  was  a far bigger task  than was  employing the  software in the two different operating
environments.

Based on  our experience in this  study, we concluded that under DOS/Windows one can indeed
replicate the Mac desktop publishing platform.  No,  everything doesn't work  exactly the same, and
some  purists would probably argue that there are significant differences.  However, for those for whom
the products more important than the process, we feel confident in saying you will find DOS/Windows


                                           12

-------
an acceptable desktop publishing environment, one that compares favorably with the typical Agency
Macintosh configuration.

                                        Key Issues

We identified a couple of factors that are important in achieving satisfactory results in DTP efforts, or
in making them as painless as possible. First, PostScript really helps.  When we were describing the
results of our tests, we pointed out that the results of our efforts on the Mac and the PS/2 were nearly
identical. Had we not been printing to PostScript printers from both machines, this probably would not
have been  the case.  PostScript minimizes many of the differences that often are found in various
software products' printer drivers; it serves as a "common language" that lots of devices and programs
speak, and which yields uniform results in different environments.

Another point worth noting is the  utility of the TIP files that are created when  you scan graphics
images.  Most graphics packages, and both PageMaker and Ventura Publisher, import TIP files
readily. Certainly (if you have access to a scanner) scanning is a convenient way to  capture an
existing graphic image. We repeatedly found it quicker and easier to simply scan a hard copy of an
image  than to move it from one graphics file format to another, and usually with  no perceptible loss
of image sharpness. Given the relatively low cost of low-end scanning options (acceptable hand-held
scanners with bundled-in software are available for under $200), this is a capability that is worth having
in your desktop publishing hardware arsenal.

                                      In Closing ...

Desktop publishing software is a powerful tool that offers impressive capabilities  for those whose
publications warrant the investment in dollars to acquire the software and hardware components of a
good DTP configuration, and the investment in time to learn to use these tools effectively.  Whether
you choose to install your DTP applications on a Macintosh or on a DOS/Windows machine, the tools
are available  in the marketplace to produce documents of professional quality.  On the other hand,
keep in mind that fairly sophisticated publications  can  be produced using only  a word  processing
package. You're  reading one—PC TAP Consumer Reports are composed entirely in WordPerfect.
But stay tuned ... we've got some ideas about DTP that we might want to try out in future issues.
                                           13

-------
                                     Open Forum
              Open Forum provides an opportunity for users to share with others their own
              innovations, or the results of their own technology assessments. The PC Technology
              Assessment Program neither verifies nor endorses the contents of Open Forum items,
              but we are pleased to offer them as a service to users.
                    tWs Kern «a» admitted la response to our dBA$6 IV Vefsfcft t.1
                    evaluation by Bitt Samuel. EPA Office ot tha Inspector General In
                    Washington. We thank Bill for sharing his cfecoveries of two dBASE
                    quirks with our readers.
                          Bugs in dBASE IV, Version 1.1

AshtonTate may have made great improvements in dBASE IV from Version 1.0 to Version 1.1, but
the latest release does contain some bugs.  While using the Control Center, I have found two: one
concerns recompilation of report files, and the other is related to deletion of catalogs.

                                Report File Recompilation

Sometimes when editing report designs from the Control Center, one gets the message, "Cannot
recompile [path name, ending with .FRO extension], source file missing" when attempting to save and
exit from report design.  The same message also appears sometimes  when you try to print a report
when the report design has not been changed, but the database has been. This happens irregularly;
I have not been able to detect any occurrence pattern. To correct the condition, take these steps:

       1. Delete the report from the catalog.

       2. Leave dBASE and delete the appropriate ".FRO"  file from the directory.

       3. Return to dBASE and add the report back to the catalog (dBASE uses the
          ".FRM" file to do this).

       4. If you had tried to change the report design, redo the changes.  When you save
          report design changes or print the report, a new "FRO" file  will be created.

                          Deleting Catalogs from CATALOG.CAT

After I deleted a catalog from my dBASE IV directory, it kept showing up in the list of catalogs dBASE
presents when the user wants to change catalogs. This indicates that the name of the deleted catalog
had been retained in the CATALOG.CAT file, although it should have been automatically removed
along with the catalog to which it referred.  In this case, I had specified UNTITLED.CAT as my default
startup catalog, and this catalog was empty.  I corrected the problem by deleting the specification of
a startup catalog.  I don't know if this bug shows up only when UNTITLED.CAT is specified, or when
any empty catalog is specified, or when any catalog at all is specified. AshtonTate warns that the bug
also can occur if you  have memory-resident programs in your configuration.
                                           14

-------
 How to Submit Items for Open Forum
 In keeping with the PC Technology Assessment Program's objective to have the user community actively
 involved in TAP projects, users are encouraged to submit items for inclusion in future PC TAP Consumer
 Reports.  If you have independently investigated the capabilities of a software product or a hardware
 component, we would like to hear from you. We'd also like you to share with others your solutions to any
 problems  you may have encountered with a particular application or device, and about tricks, shortcuts,
 or unique  applications you have devised. Although we can't promise to publish every contribution, we will
 evaluate them all in terms of their potential interest to our readers and their conformance to the spirit and
 intent of PC TAP.

 There are no additional rules for Open Forum contributions, but here are some guidelines:

               1.  Contributions must be typed.  Our first preference is  that they be
                  submitted on a floppy disk  in WordPerfect  format.  If that isn't
                  possible, the next  best method is to EMAIL the text to PCTAP,
                  EPA30647.  The least preferable method, but still acceptable, is to
                  mail a typewritten article to TAP at the address on the  cover of this
                  publication.

              2.  The length of your  contribution will be determined somewhat  by its
                  complexity. However, keep in mind that we're primarily interested in
                  the purpose of your study project and how  pleased you were with the
                  results, not in the nitty-gritty details of how  you did it.  We will publish
                  your name, address, and  phone number  for those who want  more
                  details.  Two to three  pages is probably a reasonable maximum
                  length. On the other hand, a paragraph containing a nugget that may
                  be useful to others would be equally welcome.

              3.  All material submitted by users is subject to our editing, and you will
                  not be given  an opportunity to review the final manuscript before
                  publication. Sorry, you'll just have to trust us.  If we have questions
                  or don't understand any  part of your text, we'll contact you  for
                  clarification.
We hope you enjoy PC TAP Consumer Reports, and we look forward to hearing from individuals who
have insights or discoveries to share with others. Thanks for your interest and your participation in the
PC Technology Assessment Program.
                                             15

-------