Apogee or Prinergy

[zBret]

From a user perspective can someone tell me is Apogee as good as Prinergy. What are the differences?
Thanks

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Think it is hard to give an objective answer. What I gather both are great systems, and would be hard to know wich is better, we decided to go with Apogee 8 years ago and have been following upgrade cycles, seeing improvements. We did a comparison back then, but it is very hard to compare since the refrence frame is the system you have most experience with, this means that the deeper you go in mastering a system the less objective you become (either you become possitiv as you appreciate the features or you will be negative focusing on the frustrations and what you do not have)
As well as looking the system, it depends on the support organisation that is accessible to you, and the hardware you choose. We went AGFA because we didn't want to have the workflow and CTP suppliers pointing fingers at eachother disclaiming responsibility.

 

[zBret]

Thanks Lucas
Are you using the softproofing process with apogee? or are you using a 3rd party proofing
software for your clients.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

We are not big enough to afford the Apogee Portal. We have been discussing how we can finance it, but no we do not have an online soft proofing as of today.
I have seen Portal and would like it. The modular systems is good to be able to scale the system, but we had to choose (would have liked all bells and whistles).

 

[Julio]

This forum B4Print.com may be helpful to you because they have a lot of users that freely express their experiences:

Kodak support...are you kidding me?

Apogee opinions

There are a lot of good features in Prinergy, but the automation works best with exact same job specs.

We have had the same ongoing problems – mostly getting hardware problems resolved - with Prinergy support that others have had. All too often Kodak/Creo managers merely agree with technicians that fail to solve the problem forcing us to look elsewhere for solutions. Basically, no one takes responsibility.

Apparently, remote support doesn’t check for known issues and there aren’t any hardware prinergy field technicians. The last time we were down – not including the reoccurring downs - was several days. Unfortunately, the same remote support techs don’t insure that parts are available either.

Like Lukas, we assumed going with a complete system we would not encounter finger pointing but its been nothing but finger pointing – operator error etc. As it turns out in all cases, it was a bad part that needed replaced, and other printers have been helpful in letting us know what part needed replaced.

Kodak may have bought Creo a few years ago but support has not changed.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

I just want to say that thread seems to be voicing those that have problems, yes out spoken…*objective not really. I have a good relatioonship with support, it will allways be a give and take…*I have seen the program develop and experienced listening both to wish lists and regarding support.
We do have a "try and keep downtime down" by competence attitude, and user to user forums etc are a great help. Whatever system you go with, invest time in getting to know other users, and take the time for feedback… Kodak really burnt me by how they handled Preps…*the last demo showing off new features taht they did not deliver in an outrageously expensive upgrade just made me move to a zero confidence, may be they taken all our feedback on preps and fed it (with the upgrade fees) to the prinergy team… who knows.

 

[steppy]

prinergy hardware

prinergy hardware

I am curious as to the prinergy hardware problems referenced above. I thought the prinergy product was software and the hardware was the server(s).

stephen

 

[Sev]

I had called Kodak about pricing on Preps 6 upgrade, and they said that they would contact me the next day with pricing information. That was well over a month ago, and still no upgrading pricing information. No calls, or emails. During my demo of Preps 6, it crashed often, as well.
Now as Lukas mentions about keeping the CtP and workflow with the same vendor makes sense. We installed Nexus for our workflow, and Apoge's PrintDrive for our CtP. There were some connectivity problems, so both ArtWorks and Agfa did point fingers at each other. However, our rep from Esko ArtWorks is great with not only sales, but also hands-on, and had the solution for us within a couple hours.

-Sev

 

[William Campbell]

From a user perspective can someone tell me is Apogee as good as Prinergy. What are the differences?
Thanks

We are currently using ApogeeX version 5, and have been Apogee users since the beginning, over a decade now. 13 years I think.

After this much time, the differences are less than once upon a time. Both workflows are based on Adobe technology, with APPE renderers, which of course consume native PDF, transparency and all. That switch in technology was the real turning point, and at last, put an end to the cart before the horse situation introduced by Illustrator 9 and the then new transparency features. With a workflow that uses an APPE renderer rather than CPSI, that transparency stuff is business-as-usual. Between that and Adobe in-rip trapping, most jobs are fire and forget.

That is the most important thing to consider about any workflow -- is it still PostScript? Apogee and Prinergy are not, so both qualify for a serious look. Fuji has a new one I believe, but the rumor is it's Xitron (not a problem, just nothing new, though they call it new tech). Others like RamPage and the ilk (clinging to CT/LW, if they still are), and non-Adobe clone technology, I would not recommend to any prospective buyers. Once you've used a true PDF-all-the-way workflow, based on Adobe tech, you'll understand.

As for differences between ApogeeX and Prinergy, I couldn't say all of them since I live in the Agfa world, but I have people working for me who have used Prinergy (and RamPage and others) and they say ApogeeX is better. I can only take their word for it. One thing I'm pretty sure is that Prinergy lacks the Preps Template Manager feature of ApogeeX. From what I understand (users please clarify, I invite it), when using Prinergy, the template and a complete dummy job is prepared in Preps, then sent to the workflow as a PJTF. This is the same situation for ApogeeX users who do not purchase the Preps Template Manager option. For those with the option (like us), that PJTF double-work is not required. Within the imposition task processor is a dialog laid out like Preps to select templates and signatures. For any user of Preps, they see the window and say, "Oh, I get that. I've seen all that before." So the option makes the learning curve easier, and in the end, is far more productive than the PJTF solution of making a dummy job just to not do it, and instead feed it's make-up to the workflow. I never did get how that was supposed to be "innovative" and a more efficient way of doing things. Not every bright idea is better, in all cases.

ApogeeX can read Preps templates, but that's where it ends. Under the hood, ApogeeX uses a program formally known as "Orgami." From what I understand, anyway, Agfa bought it, and that code does all the work exactly as Preps would, just tens times as fast. Particularly, how I've setup my system, using two satellites and the server each running two imposition task processors, giving me six total, so six flats are imposed simultaneously. That's productive. Large jobs are imposed in minutes, if not seconds. At any rate, it's all client-server, meaning there are no gas-gauges going past while anything is processed locally. The server (and satellites if added for scaling) do all the work. I'm fairly confident this aspect is no different with Prinergy, and is how all modern workflows should operate.

The best thing is try a job in both workflows. If you're ever in Portland, I'll give you a demo of ApogeeX. Bring a tough job and watch. Just call ahead.

 

[Joe]

One thing I'm pretty sure is that Prinergy lacks the Preps Template Manager feature of ApogeeX. From what I understand (users please clarify, I invite it), when using Prinergy, the template and a complete dummy job is prepared in Preps, then sent to the workflow as a PJTF. This is the same situation for ApogeeX users who do not purchase the Preps Template Manager option. For those with the option (like us), that PJTF double-work is not required. Within the imposition task processor is a dialog laid out like Preps to select templates and signatures. For any user of Preps, they see the window and say, "Oh, I get that. I've seen all that before." So the option makes the learning curve easier, and in the end, is far more productive than the PJTF solution of making a dummy job just to not do it, and instead feed it's make-up to the workflow. I never did get how that was supposed to be "innovative" and a more efficient way of doing things. Not every bright idea is better, in all cases.

Prinergy users can impose that way should they decide to but Prinergy also has a Prinergy Signature Selection tool where you can pick your templates from and impose within Prinergy. The only reason we ever have to actually open Preps is for creating or modifying templates. Prinergy does create a .job and a .pjtf file in the background but most users will never know about them or see them unless they dig to find them. This feature may only be in Prinergy 5. I'm not sure since I've never used any version before 5.

 

[William Campbell]

Then the two workflows have continued to mirror each other (one benefit of competition we users get to enjoy -- manufacturers keeping up with the Jones's). Considering this future in which we have arrived, most likely, deep down, neither workflow is better nor worse than the other. Both are based on Adobe tech, the best. Just different interfaces and methodology. For the prospective buyer, get demos of each, and decide which one "feels" better for your particular situation. That is my strongest advice, and more so, get demos by actual users, not the manufacturer's demo lab. That can work both ways -- make it look better than real life, and just as equally, not in the hands of actual users, make any workflow look absolutely dreadful. Get a demo by real users who use the workflow daily.

 

[Julio]

I am curious as to the prinergy hardware problems referenced above. I thought the prinergy product was software and the hardware was the server(s).

stephen

Kodak sells prinergy with Dell servers and provides support for both. Over the years we have had a couple of Dell server parts replaced. It's not so much HOW MANY but HOW LONG it takes to get a part replaced even with obvious symptoms. It typically takes about 2-3 months of ongoing and reoccurring downs to get a bad part replaced.

Kodak may have inherited prinergy support after they bought Creo but they really need to do something about the finger pointing, ecentral, and getting a return call from managers, sales reps etc.

 

[William Campbell]

Kodak sells prinergy with Dell servers and provides support for both. Over the years we have had a couple of Dell server parts replaced. It's not so much HOW MANY but HOW LONG it takes to get a part replaced even with obvious symptoms. It typically takes about 2-3 months of ongoing and reoccurring downs to get a bad part replaced.

Why not HP? That's what we use, and for enterprise solutions, I feel HP has the lead over Dell. But the bigger question is, and perhaps another factor in choosing workflows -- can you buy and maintain your own hardware?

We do, all HP. Everyone should maintain their own hardware. If you don't feel comfortable with that, or your manufacturer doesn't feel comfortable with that, well there's your problem. It has nothing to do with choice of workflow. Basic skills in computer maintenaince go a long way toward reducing costs and keeping your operation on-line.

Once upon a time Agfa didn't like the idea of us buying our own hardware, but plenty of users complained that Agfa didn't need to be in the computer hardware business. The markups were ridiculous. So for many years now, all we have bought from Agfa is software. (not counting film/CTP imagers and processors, of course. We're talking strictly workflow).

The only hardware breakdowns I've experienced relating to workflow products have been hard drives. The last time a drive went bad, the ApogeeX server switched to its fail-over twin, reported to me that a drive was out of operation, and continued with no interruption in production. I replaced the drive with a factory HP product (next day delivery) and rebuilt the server software/config within 24 hours. We never missed a beat. All that and not one single call to Agfa support. I don't need them when a hard drive goes bad. That's a general hardware issue, nothing to do with workflow software. And no expensive "service contract" involved. I mean, computers aren't so complex they require specialized engineers to keep them running. Worse case, dump the entire box and replace it. They don't cost that much. Not worse than a few hours of down-time on an expensive press, that's for sure. Well, I guess that depends on whether or not you buy and maintain them yourself. Perhaps buying them from your workflow manufacturer, after their added markup could exceed a laborer's wages for one month. Ridiculous. The "boxes" Apogee and Prinergy use are nothing special. Don't be fooled. Just more powerful CPU, more RAM, more disc space. Other than that, you could buy a box at Office Depot and make a server out of it. Really. I've done it in a pinch.

Redundancy and fail-over are typical concepts in this age of the internet. It applies to workflows along with everything else. I'm shocked to hear about any workflow that is without redundancy built into the system. That is, like, so last century.

 

[Julio]

Why not HP? That's what we use, and for enterprise solutions, I feel HP has the lead over Dell. But the bigger question is, and perhaps another factor in choosing workflows -- can you buy and maintain your own hardware?

We went with what Kodak recommended and we assumed there would be less finger pointing by buying a complete system. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked out that way.

We also have an HP server for the office and the support from HP has been excellent - parts are quickly replaced at the FIRST symptom! A trained tech comes in the next day, while the part is overnighted. Basically, parts have been replaced for Dell and HP servers - its the hardware support from Kodak/Creo that's been the problem for us.

 

[William Campbell]

Basically, parts have been replaced for Dell and HP servers - its the hardware support from Kodak/Creo that's been the problem for us.

That's the part I don't get. What are these "parts" that break down? I have trouble understanding why anyone would place the responsibility for maintaining ordinary, commodity products like HP or Dell servers in the hands of a specialized (expensive) support department of a manufacturer like Kodak. Or any of the others. In fact, these support options are likely not the most qualified to maintain computer hardware. They support the software, their focus.

Perhaps there are boards that Prinergy requires to talk to their imagers. That's all I can imagine, like for Agfa, the APIS boards in the satellites that communicate with our Avantras and Galileo CTP. None of those have ever broken, over a decade. The boxes they're installed into have broken down, but we swap the boards into another box, and we're up and running. However, the ApogeeX server, its fail-over twin, and supporting load-sharing boxes require no special hardware. All use plain vanilla boxes, just pumped full of CPU power, RAM, and lots of fast hard drives. And multiple gigabit network ports, of course.

It seems to me, putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of your manufacturer is not necessarily the most favorable solution. I say take control of some of that responsibility, and guide your company's destiny, rather than be at the mercy of any manufacturer (at least lessen it to any degree possible -- there is little we we can do when they fail to forecast consumables).

 

[Joe]

That's the part I don't get. What are these "parts" that break down? I have trouble understanding why anyone would place the responsibility for maintaining ordinary, commodity products like HP or Dell servers in the hands of a specialized (expensive) support department of a manufacturer like Kodak. Or any of the others. In fact, these support options are likely not the most qualified to maintain computer hardware. They support the software, their focus.

Perhaps there are boards that Prinergy requires to talk to their imagers. That's all I can imagine, like for Agfa, the APIS boards in the satellites that communicate with our Avantras and Galileo CTP. None of those have ever broken, over a decade. The boxes they're installed into have broken down, but we swap the boards into another box, and we're up and running. However, the ApogeeX server, its fail-over twin, and supporting load-sharing boxes require no special hardware. All use plain vanilla boxes, just pumped full of CPU power, RAM, and lots of fast hard drives. And multiple gigabit network ports, of course.

It seems to me, putting all the responsibility on the shoulders of your manufacturer is not necessarily the most favorable solution. I say take control of some of that responsibility, and guide your company's destiny, rather than be at the mercy of any manufacturer (at least lessen it to any degree possible -- there is little we we can do when they fail to forecast consumables).

I can answer the why for Prinergy and using their Dell servers I believe. According to them, and I'm not saying I completely agree, they don't want their software running on boxes with a crapshoot of different hardware. They want it running on specific hardware they have tested and that Prinergy runs successfully on. If you choose to put it on a custom box and you have problems that will be the first thing they point out.

 

[zBret]

Looks like quite a bit of info on hardware and support, anyone using the soft proofing solutions from either
apogee or prinergy before going to a hardcopy proof or are you still using pdfs for signoffs, hopefully since you are using either (apogee or prinergy) you are using there soft proofing solution, do your clients use soft proofing or is it a waste of time because of client training involvement if any.
Your thoughts
Thanks

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

If you are referring to Apogee Portal as soft proofing, we have not had enough finance or enouhg turnover to see that we can justify the cost. I would like it, but it is about the money.

 

[Rober]

I have worked with Apogee for several years. Now we have Apogee Prepress 6.0 and it works perfect.
One important think, that you forgot is the InkSave option. You have to purchase this but you save ink around 20%, and it give you a high improuvement in your print quality.
Well you know, it apply GCR to the pages.. but it is veery easy, only you have to check the checkbox "InkSave" and it go. You must not be an expert in color managment. Apogee do it for you...