Whats the best software on a small budget?

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

You can get PagePlus for about $15, which will also save you money if you later upgrade to the newest version.

Ah, right. Then there's the platform issue.

[Clay]

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8098.  I interviewed him about it for Linux Journal a while back.

[JarrodHenry]

I had a talk with Clinton a while back from Lulu (which actually is why I'm here) , and he had mentioned that Pages is a no-go app.  It produces very bad PDFs.  So.. If there's something else for the mac, I'm curious to hear it as well.

[jerry]

I had a talk with Clinton a while back from Lulu (which actually is why I'm here) , and he had mentioned that Pages is a no-go app.  It produces very bad PDFs.  So.. If there's something else for the mac, I'm curious to hear it as well.

The weird thing about Pages producing bad PDF is that the rest of the system does not--that is, Pages seems to be doing its own thing for PDF. If you open a Pages *postscript* file in Preview, and then save the resulting PDF file, it's fine.

Clinton has a step-by-step on the anvilwerks site.

Jerry

[JarrodHenry]

True.  I was just saying that he actually said he (and others)  actually stated to me that Pages was not a good product for this purpose.  The PDF thing was a small reason why.

I'd be curious to hear of people here having success with pages.

[Clinton R. Nixon]

Scribus has now been ported to OS X.

It's free, and it's an amazing DTP program.

If you're on Windows, and you don't want Adobe stuff, and you're not using PagePlus, you've made a mistake.

[Roland.of.Gilead]

Microsoft Word is simply terrible as a text layout application. Just terrible. And before you ask, Microsoft Publisher is a pigmess wrapped in a cowpie.

I'd use just about anything else before I used one of these. They just don't have the level of typographic control one needs to put together a quality text block.

Adobe InDesign is spectacular. Quark is difficult to use without much payoff, though if you can make it work, you can get what you want.

^
True

[talysman]

Um, duh.  I just realized cutepdf writer is for non-commercial use only.  Sorry 'bout that.  If you want to produce commercial quality PDF's, my recommendation is openoffice.org 

I'm a big fan of OpenOffice.org, but I have to add a caveat here: OO.o's pdf process doesn't always work right. when I was working on Last Breath, OO.o wouldn't include the title on the cover page, for some unknown reason (probably something to do with fonts.) I tried several fixes, but couldn't get it to work.

I wound up using PDF995 to print from OO.o. not only did this do the trick, but I noticed it's faster than the built-in pdf features of OO.o. PDF995 is adware rather than completely free, but I didn't see a non-commercial use restriction; even if there is one, it's only 9.95 for the non-adware PDF995 or 19.99 for the suite; the ability to convert pages in one PDF into JPEGs alone seems worth the full suite, to me.

I'm exploring some other free options for Windows users, such as WinTeXmacs, but so far they seem really complicated and probably not what the general user wants. one thing I have yet to try is a live cd Linux with Scribus, which might be a better option for Windows users than trying to compile Scribus for Windows. I'll report what I've found out about this later.

[TheLe]

Microsoft Word is simply terrible as a text layout application. Just terrible. And before you ask, Microsoft Publisher is a pigmess wrapped in a cowpie.

I'd use just about anything else before I used one of these. They just don't have the level of typographic control one needs to put together a quality text block.

Adobe InDesign is spectacular. Quark is difficult to use without much payoff, though if you can make it work, you can get what you want. I'm curious about PagePlus, but since I can't download a demo, I can't recommend it. Pages is surprisingly good and gives you the bare minimum you need for a decent page of text with images, unlike Word.

Gotta disagree there as my books can attest (free demos at www.TheLeGames.com).

Once you set your Microsoft Word document to 2 columns, the rest is easy. Bold, Italicize, underline, font-type, font-size... all is easy as as anything. Auto spell is a lifesaver, but can be problematic at times since it does not understand alot of rpg terminologies.

By the time I am done writing/editing my document, half the layout is already done. I just need to add pictures and it is good to go.

With Indesign/quark, you have to set your page count, link columns, then copy/paste your doc. And you lose all your formatting, which is a pain (bold, underline, etc). Of course, you can write/edit your document directly into indesign/quark, but it is not a word processor so that makes little sense. (I do agree that MS publisher is the worst of these options though).

There is a downside -- MS Word does not handle images as well. You cannot really wrap text around images very well, as it almost always appears in a rectangle. Still, my Unorthodox Paladins (demo available in link above) still turned out fabulous, so this is a minor gripe as far as I am concerned.

If you want something that looks like a WOTC book then yes, I think Indesign and Quark is the way to go. But frankly, you are better off hiring a real designer to do it for you if you want that.

But if you are on a budget, and you are comfortable with MS Word, then I think that is your best option (on a related note, I have heard Open Office is good too).

Good word processor, great text flow, easy Table / statblock capability, easy image insert, Simple Headers/Footers, easy page border, but no kitchen sink.

I think Ms Word is awesome, and I have happy customers who can testify.

~The Le

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

Once you set your Microsoft Word document to 2 columns, the rest is easy. Bold, Italicize, underline, font-type, font-size... all is easy as as anything. Auto spell is a lifesaver, but can be problematic at times since it does not understand alot of rpg terminologies.

TextEdit can do that and its OS-level spellcheck learns new terms system-wide. Now it sounds like you're using Windows, so you don't have access to that, but those features aren't really very unique.

What it, and Word, lack are any typographic control. Tracking, kerning, leading, these things are important. They have a lot to say about legibility and marketability. They make your doc look professional or like ass.

By the time I am done writing/editing my document, half the layout is already done. I just need to add pictures and it is good to go.

With Indesign/quark, you have to set your page count, link columns, then copy/paste your doc. And you lose all your formatting, which is a pain (bold, underline, etc).

Use Styles and they stay. That's how you should be doing it anyway. Any less is a huge waste of time fraught with error.

Connecting text fields is done automatically in InDesign. I don't remember if Quark does it, but there's really no reason to learn Quark any more.

Of course, you can write/edit your document directly into indesign/quark, but it is not a word processor so that makes little sense. (I do agree that MS publisher is the worst of these options though).

Well, I edit in InDesign, at least some. It has a spellcheck, though it doesn't call on the OS-level one, which is too bad, so it can't do it live. But a decent word processor will have all that stuff. I use Pages because of its Styles. You can do the same in Word. Just don't worry about page format; just deal with text format using Styles and import it.

There is a downside -- MS Word does not handle images as well. You cannot really wrap text around images very well, as it almost always appears in a rectangle. Still, my Unorthodox Paladins (demo available in link above) still turned out fabulous, so this is a minor gripe as far as I am concerned.

That's the difference between you and me, there. Note that this means that if you have a rectangular image that you rotate a few degrees, it makes that rectangle bigger.

Can you put an image behind text in Word?  Can you screen it back so text is legible though it? (I really don't know the answers to those questions; I'd like to, though.)

If you want something that looks like a WOTC book

You're not helping your argument here. WotC's design is terrible. Cluttered, complex, ornate, and designed to fluff up page count.

then yes, I think Indesign and Quark is the way to go. But frankly, you are better off hiring a real designer to do it for you if you want that.

I'm a real designer and I help people out all the time.

But if you are on a budget, and you are comfortable with MS Word, then I think that is your best option (on a related note, I have heard Open Office is good too).

Good word processor, great text flow, easy Table / statblock capability, easy image insert, Simple Headers/Footers, easy page border, but no kitchen sink.

I suspect OO is the way to go for editing, too. I know it uses Styles just fine, and that's all you need up to the point where stuff goes into a layout app.

[Adam]

With Indesign/quark, you have to set your page count, link columns, then copy/paste your doc. And you lose all your formatting, which is a pain (bold, underline, etc).

Page count: You don't need to predetermine the number of pages in an InDesign document. File -> Place, hold down the shift key, click on the text box you want to insert the text in, and it will flow through the linked text boxes, creating as many pages as necessary.

Link columns: Set up your master pages correctly and, as already said, text will flow automatically.

Copy/Paste your document: If you're pasting instead of placing, this is likely why you're running into problems.

Losing all your formatting: Nope. Not in any modern version of InDesign -- it can import bold, underline, italics, etc.

InDesign is obviously not for someone who doesn't have time to learn it properly, or on a tight budget, but the flaws you've pointed out are nonexistant.

[Clay]

Just as a note, OpenOffice integrates well with Scribus if you need finer layout than OpenOffice can give you.  Of course this doesn't help if you're working on Windows, but it's very useful to those of us in that whacked out Windows world.

[Clay]

those of us in that whacked out Windows world.

Or let's try Whacked Out Linux World, even. 

[Joshua A.C. Newman]

I'd certainly prefer the OO/Scribus solution to the Word solution. And I don't like OO or Scribus.

[TheLe]

Can you put an image behind text in Word?  Can you screen it back so text is legible though it? (I really don't know the answers to those questions; I'd like to, though.)

Yes, you can put your image behind the text as a background in MS word as you can with normal layout software. This is something I try to avoid though as it sucks reading text over images, and can be even more problematic when people try to print. I don't recommend putting images behind text (It's pretty, but harder to read).

That being said, there is something that MSword does not do well at all -- making the text overlap only the white spaces of the image (and therfore wrapping around the dark spots of the image). The end result? Wrapping text around an image always means the image will be rectangular, with text stopping at the image border.

Look, don't take my words to mean that Quark and Indesign are bad choices. Far from it. I think Quark and Indesign are fabulous programs that will give you extremely professional looking documents. Any graphic designer trained in either program should stick with it.

But as someone who has never been schooled in it, I found both programs (and MS publisher) to be hard to use... more importantly, slow to use. I can get a 30 page book edited, formatted, and ready for sale in a matter of days with MS Word (and PhotoImpact for image editing) -- and each of my books is in landscape pdf and portrait pdf format.

My wife is a graphic designer and she hates the fact that I use Word and PhotoImpact for my publishing. But she can't argue with the speed, results, sales, and reviews.

Quark and Indesign are great if you know how to use it, but also expensive for commercial versions. This thread asked "Whats the best software on a small budget?", and my answer to that is "MS Word".

Will it look as good in MS Word as it would in Quark/Indesign? No. Will it look professional? Absolutely.

If you are trained in Quark/Indesign, and you can afford it, then I recommend going that route.

If you are not a graphic designer with no experience in either program, and want something easy yet professional looking, then I recommend MS Word.

My 35+ pdf books is proof that it works, can sell very well, and can get excellent reviews. Quark & Indesign are better, but I don't have the time learn it or the money to spend on it.

See a sample of my MS-Word pdf book here.

~Le