Quark and Mac OS X... Only

[MacRumors]

eWeek reveals (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,613278,00.asp) a previously little published factoid... that besides Apple switching to OS X-Only come 2003... Quark will be Mac OS X-Only as well with its next revision of QuarkXPress:

Now Quark has announced the end of the line for XPress on Mac OS 9; not only will the new version run on Mac OS X only, Quark's Therrien said, it will comprise a different code base from XPress 5.0—not simply an upgrade optimized for Apple's Carbon APIs.

As the article discusses, this may be the source of some growing pains for companies making the switch, forcing both Application and OS upgrades at the same time.

[Computer_Phreak]

So its going to be written in cocoa?
Is that what they are saying?

That would improve performance and stability over carbon, correct me if I am wrong.

[CheekyGit]

Good and about time. It's only been what....close to 3 years since Mac OS X has been out. :mad:

Time to move on into the future.

[Hemingray]

I Will Believe It When I See It. :rolleyes:

[Fat Tony]

Oh boy, here comes the waterworks about OS 9 again...:rolleyes:

[Choppaface]

LOL :D :D

a new OS too? that idea has got to freak out quite a few print houses....

[TheAnswer]

Choppaface...I think you're right...

Print houses having to switch to a two year old "New" OS

and two Quark upgrades in less than four years...

I'm sure most graphic designers that still use Quark will think this is the end of creation!

"Things just don't happen this fast unless there is some demonic power involved!!" - They'll shout.

Ohh wait...it's Quark...that explains it.

[beatle888]

either:

1. the printing industry and all that directly
use it will switch to osx

2. indesign will finally be adopted

3. they stay with quark 4 and 5 to be able
to continue using os9

the service bureaus and print shops will upgrade
to be compatible with all customers.
the ad agencies and design shops will stay in
os9 till they can't function in os9 anymore.

just what i thought when i heard the news.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
So its going to be written in cocoa?
Is that what they are saying?

That would improve performance and stability over carbon, correct me if I am wrong.

Not necessarily. There are plenty of Carbon Mac OS X-only applications, such as MS Office. When you build a Carbon application under Project Builder, you have a choice to build one with resources (both Mac OS 8.x, 9.x and X) or Nib files (Mac OS X only). Cocoa only works with Nib files.

I believe that well-written Carbon-based applications will run just as fast as those which are Cocoa-based. Carbon has been improving with every release while Cocoa has been quite stable. We should see a parity between the two within a reasonable amount a time.

[e-coli]

YAY!!!!

The harder Quark makes it for everyone, the greater the likelihood that people will adopt InDesign.

:D :cool:

[Mudbug]

Okay, so I'm still waiting for IH8Qrk to say something about this.

In my agency, we've already made the great migration over to OSX from 9, but have continued to use Quark in Classic because of 1 simple reason. Our local print shops refuse InDesign files. I know it's they're own ignorance for not picking it up, but if they won't take it, and I have to add a day or two to production to get stuff on time, it's not worth the move.

I for one am REALLY looking forward to a working version of Quark in OSX. My life will become much easier as of that day.

[Choppaface]

at least the new competition will make ID2 an eve better product. hopefully adobe will really pick up the pace when it's released. ID is great but there's still stuff to dev

[bretm]

Originally posted by CheekyGit
Good and about time. It's only been what....close to 3 years since Mac OS X has been out. :mad:

Time to move on into the future.

It was released in March 2001. If you include the beta, released in sept 2000, then it would be 2 years and one month. Quite a difference from 3 years. But point taken anyway.

[jammer]

Two Quark upgrades in less than four years and now this...

Think Quark is a bit scared of ID2? Kudos to Adobe for lighting a fire under Quark's collectively lazy arses.

[j763]

Originally posted by bretm


It was released in March 2001. If you include the beta, released in sept 2000, then it would be 2 years and one month. Quite a difference from 3 years. But point taken anyway.

depends whether you count the dp's.

[Foocha]

Talk about a great leap forward. From not supporting OS X at all to *ONLY* supporting OS X. It's surely great news for everyones favourite OS.

I'm not at all suprised that they've had to do a lot of refactoring of the QuarkXPress code base. The old app looks positively geriatric with it's cheesy monochrome dialogue boxes. It'll be strange to see QuarkXPress with Aqua widgets when we never saw it with platinum ones!

This is exactly what Quark users needed, and it will force Xtensions designers to port to OS X faster.

[pianojoe]

As everybody seems to be happy with the news, I just want to throw in that the printing industry uses Macs to control some very specialised and sophisticated hardware... HELLO HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS: MY WISH FOR CHRISTMAS IS

DRIVERS DRIVERS DRIVERS

Ah, by the way: (off-topic)

Dear Hewlecom-Paqard,

When I bought my Laserjet 3200m all-in-one one year ago, you promised "special" Mac compatibility. While I was running OS 9, you didn't come up with a driver that worked. When I switched to OS X, your drivers didn't work anyway. At least I can print now on that beautiful printer-copier-fax-scanner machine - better than nothing - but not because you provided the driver: I can print because my favourite OS recognizes the machine as a generic postscript printer (with no HP software involved-finally) and works just fine.(/off-topic)

Ever mentioned that I'm deeply in love with OS X? (And no, a LJ3200m is *not* the sophisticated hardware I was talking about.)

[MikeH]

I'm not a fan of XPress, or more precisely the way Quark treat their customers, but XPress coming to OSX is a good thing.

BUT...

An OSX version of XPress will only be of any use if our bureaus and print houses upgrade to OS X too, and as most of these people are still recoiling from the fact that they had to get rid of their Quadras for PowerMacs this is likely to be a slow and painful process.

Hopefully this will kick the lazy sods into life.

[Foocha]

Providing that the document format for Quark 6 is backwards compatible, bureaux adoption needn't be a road block.

[MikeH]

As version 4 wasn't backward compatable with 3 (unless saved specifically as a v3), I wouldn't raise your hopes.

[MacArtist]

Originally posted by pianojoe
As everybody seems to be happy with the news, I just want to throw in that the printing industry uses Macs to control some very specialised and sophisticated hardware... HELLO HARDWARE MANUFACTURERS: MY WISH FOR CHRISTMAS IS

DRIVERS DRIVERS DRIVERS


Have you seen Creative Mac (http://www.creativemac.com) lately? At GraphExpo a lot of the print industry are starting to release products for OS X. EFI has released Slapsh G640, which is a print server for the Xerox DocuColor and runs on OS X. Helios' new software and server solutions are built for OS X. And I'm going to assume that EFI's Velocity for the Heidelberg Digimaster 9110 is made for OS X.

So, all in all the print industry is getting the tools that they need to migrate to OS X, but adopting the platform is still going to be a difficult undertaking.

[kenohki]

Originally posted by MikeH
As version 4 wasn't backward compatable with 3 (unless saved specifically as a v3), I wouldn't raise your hopes.

And Quark had been talking a lot about moving to an XML based file format. I'm sure their goal would be to control a future standard page file format for web/wireless distribution. In the same way that most service bureaus are Quark's b***hes right now, they want everyone to be their b***h when we start getting the morning newspaper on our video/pda cell phone communicator thingies.

Drive the format to change and the service bureaus will have to keep up.

[Wash!!]

Quark is been dead to me for about 6 month since I got InDesign.

Long live InDesign!!!
:D :D :D

[nemo]

Here's a letter Quark sent me where they mention an OSX-native version being in the works. They also defend not releasing an OSX version previously because of the cost to print houses who would need to upgrade equipment. So does that mean the version they are releasing in January won't require equipment upgrades?

Here's the letter:

Hello, The reason we are not OS X native yet, is because we were waiting for
apple to release a version of OS X that would most of our major printers
needs. It would be foolish of us to release a program that major print
providers can't use. Our customers aren't going to buy a new $500,000 print
device just because their Mac won't support it. Now that apple has released
Jaguar we are working on a version that should be 10.2 native, But probably
will not run 10.1 because it is a bad OS. Also Watch out for InDesign. Call
your printer and ask them if they can handle level three PostScript files.
Chances are they can't and if you send them something in InDesign, it will
come back looking nothing like you wanted it to.

Even though Quark has a very close working relationship with Apple, core
development of QuarkXPress 5.0 was complete before Mac OS X code was ready
to handle large, professional level print jobs. To make QuarkXPress 5.0
native to Mac OS X would have required re-engineering what we had already
completed to handle such high resolution print jobs, thereby delaying the
release of QuarkXPress 5.0, which many customers were very anxious to get.

Mac OS X is not widely adopted yet, and Quark believes that the publishing
industry will upgrade slowly, for a variety of reasons. OS X will only run
on a G4 or newer computer. Drivers for many devices such as scanners, and
image setters are not yet available, and some may never be, so you may need
to invest in other new hardware when you upgrade. Frankly, some of the
features missing from OS X will require you to spend more money on output,
since you won't be able to use your media wisely. We're working closely to
ensure that those features get implemented in future versions of the
operating system, so you can have a stable and fully functional work
environment. QuarkXPress 5.0 is native to OS 9 and is compliant with OS X,
which means we can currently serve all our customers. We'll ship a Mac OS X
native version of QuarkXPress when we're confident that you'll be able to
use it productively and reliably in your workflow.

Thank You Customer Service 800-676-4575

[Wash!!]

Since I got InDesing my printers had no problem using it the image setters works fine and there is something in the letter that they don't say about InDesign is that you can print to a PS level 2 with no problems.

And for them to say that OS 10.x is a bad OS just sound to me like a lame scuse for their lack of support for the crative community. Most designer I deal with and printers can handel InDesign.

As I would say in Spanish "Patadas de ahojado" which means Drawing man kicks

Cheers

Wash

[Sayer]

I like the part where it says "OS X only runs on a G4 computer." I guess I should get Sculley and Mulder to look at my wife's iMac Rev B which is running Mac OS X 10.1.5 right now.

Gotta love clueless marketing people who get an offhand comment from a part-time Mac developer and turns it into fundamental laws of the universe.

"See we just CANT develop for OS X because it only runs on G4 computers! It's not our fault!"

[crassusad44]

Originally posted by nemo
But probably
will not run 10.1 because it is a bad OS. Also Watch out for InDesign. Call
your printer and ask them if they can handle level three PostScript files.
Chances are they can't and if you send them something in InDesign, it will
come back looking nothing like you wanted it

10.1 a bad OS??? Yes, printing sucked, but bad? No. Windows is bad. Mac OS X 10.1 is not. And Indesign not handeling PS level 3. Adobe invented Postscript!!! How about Quark supporting PDF without the need of extentions and Distiller, for once!!!!

Ethereby delaying the
release of QuarkXPress 5.0, which many customers were very anxious to get.

They waited five bloody years, who can blame them...

Mac OS X is not widely adopted yet

4 million is nothing........

OS X will only run
on a G4 or newer computer.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

We'll ship a Mac OS X
native version of QuarkXPress when we're confident that you'll be able to
use it productively and reliably in your workflow.

So, 2007 then???


If this guy works for Quark, he must be an idiot... Well.... On second thought, maybe he does work for Quark.... :rolleyes:

[DavidFDM]

For me Quark for X is the last piece of the "upgrade to X" puzzle. I am dependent on Quark for my livelihood because the bulk of my clients use it nearly exclusively. I hope this upgrade will be relatively pain-free, unlike QXP 4.0. Unfortunately, Quark has a poor track record with initial releases of new versions and their customer support has been abysmal. Hopefully, they have learned some lessons and this upgrade will go smoothly.

[os4]

Originally posted by Wash!!
Since I got InDesing my printers had no problem using it the image setters works fine and there is something in the letter that they don't say about InDesign is that you can print to a PS level 2 with no problems.

And for them to say that OS 10.x is a bad OS just sound to me like a lame scuse for their lack of support for the crative community. Most designer I deal with and printers can handel InDesign.

Wash

Wash, I think you have picked up on several points in that supposed "letter" that just don't add up. Personally, I don't believe that that is a real letter. The grammar alone is egregious. And the reference to OSX being a bad OS is just silly.

[Foocha]

Yeah, that letter does not seem to add up. It seems unlikely that Quark would describe 10.1 as a "bad OS" simple because of a lack of drivers. Any corporate comms person would be much more likely to say "we took the view that 10.1 did not meet the needs of the majority of our customers, and so we decided to focus our efforts on the development of an OS 9 product at that time..."

If 10.1 was a bad OS, then OS 9 was hardly an OS at all!

[nemo]

The grammar is bad, the comments are very off-the-cuff and don't hold water against the facts, and the letter is extremely unprofessional. I could hardly believe it when I first read it.

Quark had contacted our deparment offering us coupons to use toward the purchase of Quark 5.0 and our Senior Designer shot back a message telling them that we won't upgrade until Xpress runs in OSX and we were even considering switching to InDesign. This was the response we received from Quark.

I have no interest in manufacturing fake letters that make Quark look bad. The letter, as embarrassing as it is, is the real thing.

nemo

[moki]

Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
So its going to be written in cocoa?
Is that what they are saying?

That would improve performance and stability over carbon, correct me if I am wrong.

You're wrong... unless you consider iPhoto and iChat to be paragons of speed and stability, of course... :)

There is no inherent advantage in either Carbon or Cocoa in terms of speed/stability. None. Zero. Zip. Nadda. They are merely two different APIs that let programmers accomplish the same thing.

You should care if your applications under OS X are Cocoa as much as you cared that your applications under Mac OS 9 were PowerPlant apps.

[yorran]

I think the focus shouldn't be on the cost for upgrading : it has always costed money. Who ever said it would not ??
But Just consider the price for XPress by itself, and the price for the Adobe Design Collection pack.
I have switched to Adobe some time ago, I don't have XPress anymore on my machine, and it's been some time I haven't launched Classic. I work everyday on desktop publishing, internet and multimedia products.
The question is : what price, and for what, are you ready to pay ?

I don't have _any_ serious problem with my configuration, and I work really faster... except when I wait InDesign to decode an XPress document from another agency.
It's been a time when XPress was the only reference for desktop publishing, but by now one should remember the way they treat their customers -how much will the next XPress upgrade cost ??-.
As to me the choice is clear : I don't need XPress on my machine, should it be Cocoa native.