Talk:Corel Ventura

message: how do i convert ms-dos based ventura document to pdf or prn or ps format????????/
This page is for discussing the article, not how to use Ventura. There are links to support groups from Corel's website www.corel.com. Having said that, you will need to supply a lot more information than this to get a useful reply from anywhere. For example, exactly which version of Ventura was originally used and what version you have now. The latest version of Ventura can print directly to any of these formats. If you don't have Ventura you can load the text file into any DTP or word processor, reformat it, and print to a digital format. hth Shantavira 11:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are several minor problems with this article:
(1) The Wiki entry is "Corel Ventura" (the current name of the product), but discussion begins with "Ventura Publisher." The reader should be alerted to this name change upfront, e.g., "Formerly known as Ventura Publisher, this software application was the first popular..."
(2) There are some uncomfortable tense shifts, e.g., "The last version released by Ventura Software Inc. was 4.1.1 in 1993," followed in the very next paragraph by "Ventura Publisher, while it has some text editing..."
(3) Considerable space is devoted to older versions, with barely a mention of the latest developments. Although it is significant that Ventura has been around since DOS days, later versions introduced major changes.
(4) Although Adobe FrameMaker is a close competitor, there are other products in the same space (e.g., Quark, Pagemaker, etc.) that could be mentioned. Further, a brief comparison to these other products might be useful.
(5) There are no links to the Corel corporation (http://www.corel.com) or other (independent) Ventura resources, e.g., Rick Altman's musings on Ventura and other things Corel (http://www.altman.com/graphics/ventura.htm), and the Ventura User Exchange (http://venturalady.com).
: I'd say go for it. Frelke 07:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for improvement 

message: :Image:Ventura Publisher Screenshot.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Ventura Publisher Screenshot.jpg

message: The very first thing Corel did when it acquired Xerox Ventura Publisher was to throw out virtually everything that differentiated it from such products as PageMaker -- DOS/GEM and Macintosh support (OS/2, as well, if I remember right), the concept of "chapters" tying together multiple text and graphics files (in their original formats, and still editable in their native software), and the concept of "publications" tying together the chapters of a multi-chapter document -- out the window, and release a bloated, Windows-only application that is arguably a PageMaker knock-off, and not even recognizable as Ventura Publisher.
I believe very strongly that at the very least, Xerox Ventura Publisher ought to have at least its own distinct section, and preferably an entirely separate article.
Hbquikcomjamesl (talk) 21:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corel Ventura is arguably an entirely different application from the original Xerox Ventura Publisher 

message: (1)  I just expanded and (I hope) clarified the description that follows the entry for Timeworks Publisher.  However, I question whether any such description is needed; no other item on the list has any description at all!
The entry for Timeworks Publisher was the first and only item listed when the "See also" section was first added to the page, on February 2, 2005.  It is clear in context that Irate (who has since been banned indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, by Jimbo Wales himself!) was trying to explain the relevance of the link, relative to the article on Ventura Publisher.  (Both programs originally were written for GEM, as it turns out, but Timeworks Publisher was much less expensive than Ventura Publisher — indeed, its Wikipedia entry presently claims that it was "the first affordable DTP program" — and Timeworks Publisher had the by-then-uncommon ability to run even on a computer lacking a hard disk!)  However, none of the other items that have subsequently been added to the list has any such explanation at all.  And all of them save one (see item #2, below) are other DTP or DTP-related applications.  Since Timeworks Publisher, likewise, is a DTP app, I don't see why any further description or explanation is necessary; it's enough that it's a DTP program, which — now that the list has grown as it has — is implicit from the mere fact of its being on the list!  (And perhaps from its name as well.)  Therefore, I recommend deleting the explanatory description in its entirety.
(People can learn such details as how compact and inexpensive the program was, and what platforms it ran on, by clicking on the link, just as I did!)
(2)  On November 24, 2006, Carrasco added the item that reads "Ventura printers from Granada".  (This was only the second item to be placed on the list — the first since the list was created on February 2, 2005!)  I have no idea what that link used to point to, but the page that it used to point to has been deleted.  (It was deleted on April 25, 2009.)
And so, according to the deletion message, has a related article on Spanish Wikipedia.  (The deletion message reads as though the article on Spanish Wikipedia was the one that the link pointed to in the first place, but the link clearly points to English Wikipedia, not Spanish.  What the subject of the Spanish article was ("several firms", and/or some unnamed corporation that these unnamed firms may or may not be part of?), and what that article had to do with the English article on "Ventura printers" — how the two articles were related — I've no idea.  No old, pre-deletion versions of the "Ventura printers" article that used to be there are available to search for a clue.)
With no article to point to, the link serves no purpose.  It does not — so far as I can tell — denote any entity or thing for which a Wikipedia entry might plausibly be added in the future.  I spent at least half an hour Googling "Ventura" and "printers", and "Ventura printers", both with and without "Granada", and I couldn't find a single thing that could possibly have been what Carrasco had in mind when he (or she) added the link.
* Based on a résumé I found (http://www.bestjobs.ro/madalinss5sg) belonging to a Romanian computer programmer who claimed to have designed and implemented "a printer simulator for the OCE Granada, Madrid and Ventura printers", I even did several additional searches in an attempt to establish whether "OCE" — or Océ, as it turns out, a Dutch company I had never heard of before "that develops, manufactures and sells printing and copying hardware and related software", and that Canon acquired in 2010 — ever offered a "Ventura", "Granada" or "Madrid" line of printers!  Alas, no such printers turned up in my search.
*Granada appears to be just the city in Spain — even though Carrasco did not bother to say "Granda, Spain" instead of just "Granada"; that is what the link for it presently points to, and always has pointed to.  And none of the other items listed on the corresponding Granada/Grenada disambiguation page makes any more sense than the city in Spain.
Consequently, I cannot tell whether "Ventura printers" was intended to denote: a print shop; a company that makes and sells printers, or printing presses; a company that prints "Venturas"; a company that prints via the "Ventura" method; or something else altogether that I have not been able to imagine!
(To the best of my knowledge there is no "Ventura" method of printing, and no such thing — let alone a printable thing — as a "Ventura".  I'm just trying to convey how hard I tried.)
As matters presently stand, the dead link is meaningless and indecipherable.  It might as well be deleted.
P.S.  Of course I could just go ahead and make the two deletions that I'm recommending myself.  However, I thought that out of courtesy to those who edited this page before me, I should at least ask publicly and wait to see what others say before I impose these additional changes myself.  Maybe someone will come up with a reason why Timeworks Publisher should have a description even though none of the other items listed under "See also" presently has one, and maybe someone will even figure out — where I could not — what the heck "Ventura printers" was supposed to be.
(I did go ahead and delete the ridiculous and pointless "kl" that 119.95.249.145 added immediately after "Granada.", on September 8, 2009 (at 08:57 — two edits were made that day, from two different IP addresses).  The letters "kl", with no space between them, or between them and the period immediately preceding them, were clearly some sort of a typo.
("Granada" was not the name of a keylayout file!  Nor does Kuala Lumpur or anyone else have a ".kl" TLD!  At least not yet.)
I also deleted the unnecessary period after "Granada", since no other item on the list has a period after it.  (Irate put a period at the end of his entry for Timeworks Publisher, but I deleted that already.  It was not a proper sentence (nor properly punctuated nor capitalized as a sentence), and other list items were not delimited by periods.)  The period after "Granada" was obviously a mistake, due to Carrasco following Irate's erroneous and misleading lead.)
2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:32 (talk) 23:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also"