Quark 6 Alpha [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

shadowfax

Jan 20, 2003, 01:00 AM

Originally posted by Choppaface
lol :D :D

I can't wait till everybody gets quark 6.0 and then there are riots when 10.3 is released and everything in quark breaks like in photoshop, illustrator... he he

November 24, 2004: Panicked Quark 6.0 users awoke in horror this morning as, after upgrading OS X to 10.5.2, they puzzled over Quark's request for their administrator password, only to find that, after being given the authority, quark ran a version-dependent script that removed Quark itself, the user's music, documents, home movies, and finally, all of OS X's system folder.
Said a Quark spokesman: "oh, hell, it looks like John forgot to remove those damned random malicious autorun scripts he'd been writing to pass all his free time as we all sat on our asses thinking about updating Quark for OS X. well, what can i say? let the buyer beware."
Alsoft stock is up over 20% today, as a relatively small number of what an Adobe Spokesman referred to as "complete idiots" stormed softare retailers nation-wide in an effort to acquire the award-winning software, DiskWarrior. said an Alsoft spokesman Andy Weissman: "It seems that we are one of the small groups of people actually profiting from that company's foolery. But just wait until 10.5.3, when John's next script re-zeroes the entire hard drive." Weissman snickered secretively and declined further comment.
In a last-ditch effort to save face, the future release of Quark 7.0 was announced today, for Windows XP, Windows 2000, Windows.NET, Yellow Dog Linux, RedHat Linux, Debian Linux, Mandrake-Linux, and Mac OS 9.2.2. Notable among the proograms that it would not support are X11, Classic, and OS X 10.5. Quark is slated to be released in 2009. Its stock is up 24 points today.

jccbin

Jan 20, 2003, 01:24 AM

Word is that Quark only sold abut 10-15K copies of 5.x. They sold nearly 125K copies fo 4.x, for comparison.

Quark is a privately-held company so it cannot raise money the same way a company like GE, MSFT, or AAPL can, by selling stock. Quark can raise money by bringing in addition investors, going public (not), or by getting loans against future products or current assets.

Think about those sales figures:

Even if EVERY copy of Xpress 5.x they sold was at full retail price (NO UPGRADES), they would only bring in $10.5 Million (15,000 X $700).

More likely, they sold abut half for full price ($5.25 million) and half for upgrade (7,500 X $300 = $2.25million) for $7.5 million GROSS income on a two-to-four year time investment. Not a lot of dough to pay folks with if the company is paying off its debts, investors and the like.

Quark might be in real danger of going under for good. BTW, those sales figures came from reports at that recent Quark meeting where Quark Pres/CEO Fred Ibrahimi made those "Mac Market is shrinking" statements and told the Mac Quark users to move over to something else if they didn't like the pace Quark was moving. So, I can't say the numbers are solid, but they are probably in the ballpark.

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 01:30 AM

I hope they go down. HARD. Something ugly. Real pie-in-the-face stuff.

Meanwhile, I'll be sending yet another COMPLEX job to press using InDesign 2.0.1.

Bye Quark! (waving, big grin on face) Bye now! Get off the playground!

shadowfax

Jan 20, 2003, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by jccbin
Word is that Quark only sold abut 10-15K copies of 5.x. They sold nearly 125K copies fo 4.x, for comparison.

Quark is a privately-held company so it cannot raise money the same way a company like GE, MSFT, or AAPL can, by selling stock. Quark can raise money by bringing in addition investors, going public (not), or by getting loans against future products or current assets.

Think about those sales figures:

Even if EVERY copy of Xpress 5.x they sold was at full retail price (NO UPGRADES), they would only bring in $10.5 Million (15,000 X $700).

More likely, they sold abut half for full price ($5.25 million) and half for upgrade (7,500 X $300 = $2.25million) for $7.5 million GROSS income on a two-to-four year time investment. Not a lot of dough to pay folks with if the company is paying off its debts, investors and the like.

Quark might be in real danger of going under for good. BTW, those sales figures came from reports at that recent Quark meeting where Quark Pres/CEO Fred Ibrahimi made those "Mac Market is shrinking" statements and told the Mac Quark users to move over to something else if they didn't like the pace Quark was moving. So, I can't say the numbers are solid, but they are probably in the ballpark.

wow. that's not any good. that said, i've seen freeware that's better than this (not for publishing, but still). Adobe was something of a monolith, dragging it's OS X feet for too long. Quark is just freaking extinct. staying faithful to a program like that as apple drops support for OS X is like wallowing in your own excrement, excuse the imagery. nobody wants to learn a totally new application, or convert all your old crap to a new app... although a convenient workaround is to keep them archived with an old computer.... you know you have to upgrade... just keep a few old ones with OS 9 to manage that stuff. i hope Quark users will be inspired to leave their lazy, impotent lover for a younger, more adept one (inDesign has been posited) when apple flips its bird at motorola and jumps on the IBM PPC bandwagon (i'm crossing my fingers).

beatle888

Jan 20, 2003, 01:37 AM

god finally everybody is on the same page.

quark sucks....i use it everyday and have used
it for ten years.......lately, when in quark i find
myself saying god this program sucks :D its true
you guys.....this program doesnt even have
hot keys for every tool....you can only cycle
forwards or backwards.....oh and try to flow in
text to linked text boxes and then find that it
would, at a certain point in production, that
it would now be more effecient to work with
unlinked text boxes.....cant do it unless you
dont mind all the text being dumped back into
the FIRST and only the FIRST text box....WHY?
why cant you flow in text to linked text boxes
for speed and ease of formatting......THEN break
those links.......say your layout had to change
at the last minute because your client gave you
additional content.

i could go on but......this program isnt worth it.
tell you what......im working for one of the
TOP ad agencies in the area....los angeles area..
and their switching :D thank god....ive lost my
passion for quark when they went from 3.3 to 4.0 and charges us $300 bucks and ended up
costing the print industry mILLIONS because
of all the problems of quark...all the film that
needed to be re-output.....no joke....

Bastich

Jan 20, 2003, 02:03 AM

Anyone here tried the Creator demo yet?

http://www.creatorsoftware.com

faustofernos

Jan 20, 2003, 02:58 AM

http://www.creatorsoftware.com/

Waaah hah hah ahha

I'm sorry, I'm laughing my ass off because I just downloaded the Creator demo (6.5.2) for OSX and it TOTALLY BLOWS. umm where do I begin?

No ANTI ALIASING WHATSOEVER
BAD Picture PREVIEW (dithering)

Drop shadows? A TOTAL JOKE

NO TRUE INTERGRATION WITH SUITCASE
SUI ad sizes are the default page sizes! (NOBODY uses SUI except Old school publications which run their own presses)

This program is like a relic from the past. Cute, funny, but totally useless. I rather play "Space Invaders" on my ROM emulator, thank you...

If you want a good laugh, download it, and play around with it. you'll amuse yourself for a moment or two.

My prediction is that Quark 6 wont come out for another 2 years, and by then it will get bought out by Adobe, Apple or Macromedia. So if you are holding your breath for Quark to go OSX, DONT, cause its not going to happen. Belive me. I've seen this company exec's with my own two blue eyes, and they are dull normals.

Its kinda sad, cause InDesign has a ton of problems too... Hopefully InDesign3 will address them. (speed, style sheet imports, font menu previews, stability, text wrapping is isolated from object layering, RIP inconsistencies)

Choppaface

Jan 20, 2003, 03:34 AM

it would be interesting if macromedia bought quark, though I don't think they have much of a footing in the print biz

chewbaccapits

Jan 20, 2003, 04:11 AM

wouldn't it be great if a majority of apple users decided to boycott quark! I know I will...You with me men?

Jays

Jan 20, 2003, 05:10 AM

Someone mentioned $ 700 for Quark 4? Here in Europe it cost more than $ 2000!!! as a soft- hard- ware reseller I received last week a mail from one of my suppliers stating that the price for Express will go up next week by 5%, I could not believe what I was reading.

Here in Holland not even one advertising agency (I know of) works with OSX because there is no Express version for it, Indesign is not even considered an option, people here are very scared to try something new. sales of PowerMac's will continue dropping here as no one has a need for quicker computers most have G4 (400-733mhz) which work just fine for Mac OS9.

avus

Jan 20, 2003, 06:16 AM

Originally posted by Jays
Someone mentioned $ 700 for Quark 4? Here in Europe it cost more than $ 2000!!! as a soft- hard- ware reseller I received last week a mail from one of my suppliers stating that the price for Express will go up next week by 5%, I could not believe what I was reading.

Welcome to what Japanese has been dealing with for a long, long time... Quark has a nerve to charge appox. $2500US for Version 4.1J without any Xtensions or high quality Japanese fonts like InDesign 2. (BTW, the price for InDesign 2 in Japan is about $765US - less than 1/3!). I have a high hope that the industry will switch to InDesign soon despite the recession there. I have seen some encouraging signs - I heard that the most of design and DTP schools there already switched, so did many high-profile design houses and publishers. Of course, smaller companies will have to stick with Quark and OS9 for a time being, but they will switch soon or later. One thing is for sure - they will not likely purchase Quark 6 for OS X, as they will not replace the hardware AND pay Quark's ridiculous prices.

MyLeftNut

Jan 20, 2003, 06:21 AM

Same here in AUstralia...sick to death of hearing about how Ive gotta know Quark or I cant get work anywhere...%$*# that! I will use the best tools I can lay my hands on..and when quark is charging 3000 odd dollars (AU) for their chunk of s*$t no way...hmmmphh...

just my 2c....sorry

crassusad44

Jan 20, 2003, 06:44 AM

DavidFDM

Jan 20, 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Choppaface
it would be interesting if macromedia bought quark, though I don't think they have much of a footing in the print biz

Macromedia does have Freehand, Illustrator's main competition.

I have such mixed feelings about Quark. On one hand, I am tired of these ridiculously long product cycles. They add features which no one wants or needs (i.e. HTML export) or badly implemented features like their table tool. On the other hand. I am very fast and profitable in Quark which ad agencies apppreciate. Now, I have nothing against InDesign but Quark will have its place on my hard drive, mostly because of the gigabytes of old jobs in Quark 3 and 4 which need to be accessed, edited and output. InDesign's conversion ability has yet to impress me.

I think Macromedia buying Quark would be great for all involved. MM gets an app they can expand their presence in the print world with and Quark gets an infusion of cash, coders and an excellent help desk.

joesporleder

Jan 20, 2003, 08:47 AM

Creator is a much better product than a certain poster's rather limited test drive suggests. SUI? Obviously said poster does not understand Creator's origins or core market, which is the newspaper advertising world. Had it ever occured to you that default sizes could be whatever you want them to be? I really laugh my butt off listening to these quick glance "reviews" of software from folks whom obviously went in with a bias to begin with! I would think that "Mac" people would be a little more open minded. InDesign comes across as bloatware, but I would seriously consider it part of my workflow as an open minded Mac user, but I must tell you that Creator has a strong following in the small to medium sized publishing companies (meaning newspaper and shopper publishers), in fact I now of several dailies and weekly newspapers and shopping guides that use Creator for part or all of their workflow. Creator allows for easily placing elements (like starbusts and all kinds of polygons, type manipulation and so on) much easier than the traditional "desktop publishing" programs like InDesign, PageMaker or QuarkXPress. Also, Creator has a very straight forward, easy to use and powerful method for making color separation plates.

aharon

Jan 20, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
wouldn't it be great if a majority of apple users decided to boycott quark! I know I will...You with me men?

I boycotted quark when InDesign 1.0 came out, everyone laughed at me, looks who is laughing now. :D

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 09:00 AM

Same here, aharon. Same here. I do feel bad for a lot of folks who are stuck using Quark. I'm not so naive to say that ID is perfect, but once you get behind the wheel of ID, what a smooth drive it is compared to (hack, cough) Quark.

Sonofhaig

Jan 20, 2003, 09:16 AM

When OS 9 died, it took Quark Express with it.
Hey look, they had the opportunity and they blew it.
Bye Bye Quark. Don't let the door hit you in the @ss! :p

ZhuJo

Jan 20, 2003, 10:26 AM

Try Mlayout from http://www.softmagic.com
It's an Cocoa publishing app. I think if this Korean firm put some money into development and marketing, it would have a GREAT potential

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 10:29 AM

Wait. Wait. Wait. No offense, all, but let's get back on the original topic: That Quark must die a fiery death, with their headquarters building imploding and the head honchos running tarred and feathered from the building!

FOCUS, people, FOCUS! :D

jayscheuerle

Jan 20, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by mangoman
Same here, aharon. Same here. I do feel bad for a lot of folks who are stuck using Quark. I'm not so naive to say that ID is perfect, but once you get behind the wheel of ID, what a smooth drive it is compared to (hack, cough) Quark.

I'd love to use ID2 more, but it's really too slow, excruciatingly so, on a 450mHz G4. Quark in Classic is much faster, though dealing with its redraw bugs (Yes, I have ClassicDraw XT) and inability to properly handle long filenames, takes time and is a pain as well. The slowness of my company's transition to OSX (I'm the only print artist that is running it) assures me that we'll be Quarkbound for the foreseeable future. In any case, choice is always a good thing...

Alpha?!! If 10 monkeys typed 10 lines of code every 10 minutes, could they write a Cocoa Quark in 10 years?...

Centris 650

Jan 20, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by michaelyoung
holy crap! alpha? After all this time?

Am I missing something?

My thoughts exactly. QX in Alpha only? Man. It would be a long wait for QX6....if I hadn't already stopped using QX that is! :D :p

FlamDrag

Jan 20, 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle

If 10 monkeys typed 10 lines of code every 10 minutes, could they write a Cocoa Quark in 10 years?...

WAIT! Maybe this IS their plan! So let's see, when would that put their release date? OSX has been out for over a year, so... 2012?

Of course, if they only have 5 monkeys...

Wash!!

Jan 20, 2003, 12:16 PM

Quark is dead,

I been using InDesign for a while and send jobs out to my printers. told them I'm using InDesign for now on and they said no problem. So the switching is on.

"My name is Wash...and I'm a (quark)switcher":D

bdkennedy1

Jan 20, 2003, 12:20 PM

People don't want to switch from Quark to InDesign for the same reason they don't want to switch from OS 9 to OS X... they won't embrace new technology, they're too scared or Quark has like one feature they just can't live without.

Personally I think after using both Quark and InDesign, they both suck.

jayscheuerle

Jan 20, 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by bryank1
People don't want to switch from Quark to InDesign for the same reason they don't want to switch from OS 9 to OS X... they won't embrace new technology, they're too scared or Quark has like one feature they just can't live without.

Personally I think after using both Quark and InDesign, they both suck.

Most people aren't switching because:

1) If it ain't broke...
2) Hardware is too old to run ID2 smoothly
3) Industry standard (still)
4) Ignorance
5) They prefer Quark

I've played with ID2 on my own time & wouldn't mind switching over at work (in spite of the speed hit), but other people within the company need to open my files. None of these other are even running OSX yet & they're happy (not afraid) running what they're running because they don't know any better. Most have not even heard of InDesign. Not everybody out there is a MacRumors member... -j

@HomeNow

Jan 20, 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by jccbin
Word is that Quark only sold abut 10-15K copies of 5.x. They sold nearly 125K copies fo 4.x, for comparison.

Quark is a privately-held company so it cannot raise money the same way a company like GE, MSFT, or AAPL can, by selling stock. Quark can raise money by bringing in addition investors, going public (not), or by getting loans against future products or current assets.

Think about those sales figures:

Even if EVERY copy of Xpress 5.x they sold was at full retail price (NO UPGRADES), they would only bring in $10.5 Million (15,000 X $700).

More likely, they sold abut half for full price ($5.25 million) and half for upgrade (7,500 X $300 = $2.25million) for $7.5 million GROSS income on a two-to-four year time investment. Not a lot of dough to pay folks with if the company is paying off its debts, investors and the like.

Quark might be in real danger of going under for good. BTW, those sales figures came from reports at that recent Quark meeting where Quark Pres/CEO Fred Ibrahimi made those "Mac Market is shrinking" statements and told the Mac Quark users to move over to something else if they didn't like the pace Quark was moving. So, I can't say the numbers are solid, but they are probably in the ballpark.

This might not be as bas as it sounds. Quarks largest customers tend to be slow to upgrade, often takeing a 1-2 years after a major version release to adopt it on a large scale. I work in book publishing. We have yet to upgrade, and none of our clients have asked us to use it either. Even if we did start installing it today, it would take up to a year to get the majority of our projects switched over (we wouldnt switch a job in mid production, and some books have production runs of 6-12 months or more). If you looked at historical sales figures for the Quark 3.32 to 4 move they are probably fairly similar given the timeframe since 5.0 was introduced (I know that my company was still buying 3.32 from any source we could find 18-24 months after Quark 4 was introduced). Add into it the Quark 6/OS X question and its is amazing that Quark has sold any copies of 5.0.

@HomeNow

Jan 20, 2003, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by bryank1
People don't want to switch from Quark to InDesign for the same reason they don't want to switch from OS 9 to OS X... they won't embrace new technology, they're too scared or Quark has like one feature they just can't live without.

Personally I think after using both Quark and InDesign, they both suck.

Quark is a better production tool than InDesign. It is more streamlined, and screen redraws are a lot faster. InDesign's pdf flattening breaks some OPI workflows, so priinting takes longer. In a large scale production house this can add a lot of time and expense to the production of a book. (How many people out there have built a complicated document in InDesign with 20 pages? From what I've seen I could do it in Quark 3.32 on a 400 mhz G3 faster than on my dual 1Ghz using InDesign, I may be exadurating a little but not by much)

Indesign is a better design tool than Quark. You have better previews, and more power to composit graphics into the document.

meddle

Jan 20, 2003, 01:04 PM

Quark is taking a long time to release a new product for several reasons. Fred has been busy laying off his American staff to move programming to India. http://www.quarkindia.com Any time you kill of development staff and hire new people your product is going to take longer to get out. I don't know that every body is gone from Denver, but there have been lot's of lay offs.

mrsebastian

Jan 20, 2003, 01:07 PM

quark are you reading any of this?! i hope someone over there is paying attention, because as you can see by the posts today and many previous ones your circling the drain. even the die-hard qx fans are slowly, but surely moving on.

if there's one thing i've learned on this technological band wagon, you gotta hold on tight. if you fall off, you'd better get back on fast! id has brought many things the graphics field has been asking for, for a long time and is getting better and better. let's face it, no program or hardware will ever be perfect and i think that's the point, so we keep upgrading of course. with quarks attitude though, they should soon fall by the wayside. so, thanks for the memories quark and thank you adobe for provding a wonderful product that's getting better and better :)

jayscheuerle

Jan 20, 2003, 01:17 PM

Quark 6 is going to come out with essentially the same feature set as 5, but aquafied. They'll probably toss in some web-specific features that the publishing world could care less about. At this point, a true mass exodus will occur to ID2 because hope will have been lost. If Quark's going to take this much time, something great better come out of them other than just an ultra-stable, native version of Xpress5. Frankly, I don't think they have the creativity to step up with the types of features that ID2 has. Quark has always had that feeling like it was designed by and for engineers or CAD people.

It has no soul...

JonesBonk

Jan 20, 2003, 01:50 PM

Just Look!

Quark announces support for Apple's Mac OS X

DENVER - September 1, 1998 - In a continued effort to develop software for all the most popular operating systems, Quark Inc. today announced that it will include support for Apple's upcoming operating system, Mac OS X (ten), in its next release of QuarkXPress. Quark will also show its support by participating in Steve Jobs' opening keynote at the Seybold San Francisco conference September 1-3, 1998.

Check it out! (http://www.quark.com/about/presscenter/prview.jsp?idx=25)

You could've knocked me over with a feather!:rolleyes:

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by @HomeNow
(How many people out there have built a complicated document in InDesign with 20 pages? From what I've seen I could do it in Quark 3.32 on a 400 mhz G3 faster than on my dual 1Ghz using InDesign, I may be exadurating a little but not by much)

LOL. That's funny. If you could see the complex InDesign docs I've been shipping off to a variety of printers for the past 2 years, you might be impressed. Who knows, maybe you wouldn't. FWIW, I've sent several docs in the past year, a few of which were over a hundred pages (data planners) which included transparencies. The prepress guys and I talked before hand and, although they were a little squeamish, the job ripped fine. Recently sent another funky job to press: 72 pager, transparencies, spot plates, etc. Again, no sweat. I have a couple of colleagues who have sent twice as much InD material than I have.

Look, I'm not saying it's perfect. But on a daily, practical basis, as someone who's been using Quark for over five years and InD for two, I'll take InDesign anyday. Period (<-- oops. prepare for flame war!)

OK. Enough from me, for now.

Flame away, Quark slaves!

:D

ZhuJo

Jan 20, 2003, 02:05 PM

http://www.softmagic.com

jayscheuerle

Jan 20, 2003, 02:35 PM

Mangoman, how fast is the box you're running ID2 on? Its sluggishness drives me nuts on a 450 (as did OSX's in general until I got used to it).

Anyone else? At what speed machine does ID2 not feel so darn sluggish? - j

greenfruit

Jan 20, 2003, 02:41 PM

I think id like Macromedia to buy quark, itd be the missing app for Macromedia. Im even one of the few that prefer Freehand to Illustrator.

we are happy to move from 9 to X, and even to ID from quark, but weve recently upgraded to Quark 5 after problems with 4, but NONE of our repro houses have quark 5 let alone ID, so we have to downsave to Quark4.

trebblekicked

Jan 20, 2003, 03:09 PM

What you guys should try is MS Paint 5.0.1b

word around the campfire is you can use capital letters now...

www2.microsoft.com/usethissoftwareoreelseyouuglyloserface.htm

Wash!!

Jan 20, 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by greenfruit
I think id like Macromedia to buy quark, itd be the missing app for Macromedia. Im even one of the few that prefer Freehand to Illustrator.

we are happy to move from 9 to X, and even to ID from quark, but weve recently upgraded to Quark 5 after problems with 4, but NONE of our repro houses have quark 5 let alone ID, so we have to downsave to Quark4.

I'm also one of the few that prefers Freehand over Illustrator.

Macromedia can take parts of freehand and polish them and it would make a killer pagelayout program ( whishful thinking)

Cheers

greenfruit

Jan 20, 2003, 04:09 PM

if they did the multiple page sizes in one doc that freehand does in a quarkesque app, itd be great.

Wash!!

Jan 20, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by greenfruit
if they did the multiple page sizes in one doc that freehand does in a quarkesque app, itd be great.

I created multiple pages in all kinds odd sizes and it's as simple as point and click:D

try that with illustrator or Quark heck even with InDesing.

Too bad Macromedia is draging its feet on an upadte for Freehand they should be by now on Freehand 10.2.
Macromedia where are you?

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Mangoman, how fast is the box you're running ID2 on? Its sluggishness drives me nuts on a 450 (as did OSX's in general until I got used to it).

Anyone else? At what speed machine does ID2 not feel so darn sluggish? - j

My colleague that I mentioned (geesh, am I spellin' that right?:confused: ) runs InD on a 450mhz. I've used his machine--and it IS slower than I want it to be. Frustrating. He, on the other hand, has the patience of Job. To answer your question: I run 933MHz Quicksilvers at home and at work, and at the risk of sounding like an a-hole, I'd hate to be running anything slower. So yeah, I'm with you, InD seems to be a hog for memory, processor, or both.

:(

I STILL wanna see Quark go down in flames. Heh heh...

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Wash!!

I created multiple pages in all kinds odd sizes and it's as simple as point and click:D

try that with illustrator or Quark heck even with InDesing.

Too bad Macromedia is draging its feet on an upadte for Freehand they should be by now on Freehand 10.2.
Macromedia where are you?

I'm one of those longtime Freehand devotees, too. Yep, one of the Freaks. And I also wish they'd get off their butts and improve the app. Sometime this year would, um, be nice...

greenfruit

Jan 20, 2003, 04:26 PM

i started using Freehand from 0.97b when it tookover from whatever the version before illustrator 88 was. It could do grads in text without converting to paths and i though 'WOW!'

of course we had cricketdraw at that time too, and we had quark 1 boxed up till a year or so ago when it got 'preened' in a clearout.

Wash!!

Jan 20, 2003, 04:47 PM

I'm glad I'm not the only one!!!

greenfruit

Jan 20, 2003, 04:50 PM

just incase no-ones seen this,

http://madeonamac.homeunix.net/~matthewm/blog/images/goodbyemrquark.jpg

scanned from macuser

mangoman

Jan 20, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by greenfruit
just incase no-ones seen this,

http://madeonamac.homeunix.net/~matthewm/blog/images/goodbyemrquark.jpg

scanned from macuser

Is there a reason why this was scanned at 12 billion percent? :D

greenfruit

Jan 20, 2003, 05:02 PM

no, just enough to be easily readable, heres a smaller one

http://madeonamac.homeunix.net/~matthewm/blog/images/sml-goodbyemrquark.jpg

and this is quicker http://homepage.mac.com/greenfruit/sml-goodbyemrquark.jpg

MacKenzie999

Jan 20, 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Quark has always had that feeling like it was designed by and for engineers or CAD people.

It has no soul...

Perfectly put, I've had that same feeling for years but couldn't quite articulate it.

I like ID quite a lot, but I'm a broadcast guy and my print needs are minimal.

MacKenzie999

Jan 20, 2003, 06:44 PM

Originally posted by greenfruit
Im even one of the few that prefer Freehand to Illustrator.

Rock on, brother, Freehand is awesome

awulf

Jan 20, 2003, 07:02 PM

Actually, we probably don't want to see Quark go down. If Quark went down, there wouldn't be any competition for Adobe. The reason why ID cost much, much less and is being updated continuously is to try to switch people over from Quark. Once Quark has died, Adobe can raise the price and slow down development. Just Look at how expensive other professional Adobe products are.

Adobe products (except photoshop) run really slow! GoLive 6, it takes about 10 min to open up a site with 2000 files (including graphics) on a PM G4 466. GoLive 5 on my 7600/132 opens that up in 4 min, and v4 opens it up instantly.

Illustrator 10 is much slower than FreeHand 10 (When I tried out both on the 7600).

Wash!!

Jan 20, 2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by MacKenzie999

Rock on, brother, Freehand is awesome

Wash!!

Jan 20, 2003, 09:37 PM

Originally posted by greenfruit
no, just enough to be easily readable, heres a smaller one

http://madeonamac.homeunix.net/~matthewm/blog/images/sml-goodbyemrquark.jpg

and this is quicker http://homepage.mac.com/greenfruit/sml-goodbyemrquark.jpg

Quarks acts as if it the only game in town, may have been for a while it was but not any more.
The fact that the is that they though they could ******* their customers as long as there was OS 9, then X came along and all developers jump on but they did not so now they tried to save face by saying the OS X is a dead end OS, they think by blaming apple the problem wil go away.

They just plain suck they are slow in development, at it shows now they are paying for it. Quark thinks that programs should be develop like it was in t '60s.
DIE QUARK DIE !!!!

MyLeftNut

Jan 20, 2003, 09:49 PM

Thus lies the problem with both programs..one of processor power...even if ID is slow, surely new processors will make a massive difference?

Once that is resolved it may be easier to make decision about upgrading fairly easily...

faustofernos

Jan 21, 2003, 01:45 AM

R.I.P.
Quark Xpress
1981-2003

Love ya, Hated ya, Glad to see you go. Let's hope everyone learned their lesson...

jchrise

Jan 21, 2003, 02:17 AM

We made the ID switch at our agency 6 months ago and will never look back.

Who I think will end up buying Quark will not be Macromedia but the ugly giant himself Microsoft. Think about it. The only missing market Microsoft has yet to put a dent in is the core market for Apple...publishing. What better way than to obtain and control the product that dominates that market?

Quark's CEO is forgetting that most if not all ad agencies in the U.S. are Mac based and that creatives would rather switch careers than switch platforms. I can't speak for all creatives of course, but those who I am associated with will never cave to a PC.

The college in which I am associated with threatens every year to yank the Macs from campus and I remind them every year that if they do, I won't teach the design courses and they would be hard-pressed to find any worthy design professional to teach it as well. I am an adjunct, so I have very little to lose when being so brash.

We designers truly are passionate about our tools of the trade.

newworldempire

Jan 21, 2003, 06:54 AM

There are many more apps used in pre-press that need to be updated. The company's that produce this software must relize that they need to get their programs into X NOW because their hurting Apple and the company's using their products. If you can code the whoel damn app to begin with I don't see it being impossible to port to carbon at least.

jayscheuerle

Jan 21, 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by jchrise
Who I think will end up buying Quark will not be Macromedia but the ugly giant himself Microsoft..

Or how about...

... Corel? (shudder....)

Wry Cooter

Jan 21, 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by faustofernos
The one thing that nobody talks about, or discusses, is WHY such a wealthy company can't come up with OSX version of its ONLY software application.

You commonly see following in companies that have several big corporate clients...

A price structure based towards corporate/professional (perhaps prosumer) that price gouges because these customers can write it off as a business expense.

A payroll structure based on commissioned sales and hand-holding for such clients.

In short- more spent on directed marketing, than Research and Development.

When Canon the camera company developed desktop copiers and laser printer technology, you saw something similar happening. A very affordable low maintenance product that in addition to giving people access to their own copier for the first time, also attracted the old type of high margin profit customer, corporate middle management that didn't have time to change the toner on their copier. So you saw a lot of payroll dedicated to coddling that dee[ pocket customer, that at the same time, tried to sell up the people that bought the affordable model.

I can't totally fault the model-- if Quark had not bothered to give free seminars way back when, a lot of people may never have realized it could work circles around PageMaker for example. But once that workforce is entrenched, it is difficult to redistribute development funds, as long as the sales force keeps up their end of the bargain, they stayed.

That is why most of us got phone calls asking the rather obvious question why we had not bought Quark 5, instead of a cheaper email telling us when the product we might actually want (ready for OS X) would be ready.

Quark is finding its fat cat customers have IP departments that are Wintel based, and that it has a better chance of competing in the Wintel market, where Pagemaker, which it can easily beat, is still a majority platform. They see more growth there, for the business model they are presently using, one heavy in sales dweebs and short on coders.

On the Mac side, the competition is harder, independant sorts that have less chance of being coddled by a personal sales rep instead of results.

ipaul99

Jan 21, 2003, 12:13 PM

I think Quark is being bull-headed about their stance toward the Mac platform. Here is a company that hasnt updated the interface on their flagship program since 1986. The only reason QuarkXpress is sucessful is because it's been around so long, that most designers and presshouses are afraid to switch, which I can understand. Adobe has proved with Indesign 2 that page layout can be done right. Come on, features like transparancy and multiple undos should have been in Quark a long long time ago. Quark has bullied this industry into thinking that they are the only game in town. Its nice to see Indesign light a fire under their ass. I've only used Indesign since 1.5 came out, and life is good.

jayscheuerle

Jan 21, 2003, 12:26 PM

greenfruit

Jan 21, 2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by ipaul99
I think Quark is being bull-headed about their stance toward the Mac platform. Here is a company that hasnt updated the interface on their flagship program since 1986. The only reason QuarkXpress is sucessful is because it's been around so long, that most designers and presshouses are afraid to switch, which I can understand. Adobe has proved with Indesign 2 that page layout can be done right. Come on, features like transparancy and multiple undos should have been in Quark a long long time ago. Quark has bullied this industry into thinking that they are the only game in town. Its nice to see Indesign light a fire under their ass. I've only used Indesign since 1.5 came out, and life is good.

i dont know what industry your in, or if you are in america, but something you have to understand is that we dont work alone.

We are an advertising agency in the UK, and NONE of our repro houses have quark 5, we have to downsave to quark 4, i doubt theyve even heard of ID. Most publications ask for Quark not ID, although more are accepting PDFs, but we cant move over to ID if a magazine wont accept it or PDFs.

From what i understand, in the USA ID use is widespread, but thats just not the case here.

Wed quite happily dump quark and move to ID and OSX, i use OSX at home, and have played with ID a bit and i kinda like it (even though ive never really liked the illustrator UI). We arent scared to change to ID for the sake of it, its just that we need to work with everyone else in our chain.

We also happen to be very busy at the moment, and changing OS and DTP software would put major problem in our system. Another problem of course is cost, it would mean buying copies of ID to replace our Quark, probably more memory on some macs, and no doubt replacing some older macs.

having said that, i am going to the ID roadshow in london in feb, so hopefully ill get some answers there.

jayscheuerle

Jan 21, 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by greenfruit
From what i understand, in the USA ID use is widespread, but thats just not the case here.

Actually, ID use is widespread in the MacRumors forum, but not in the publishing world in general. I think Adobe would be happy to have the same percentage of publishing marketshare that Apple has in the PC world...

ipaul99

Jan 21, 2003, 01:47 PM

"An interesting reversal...

The only reason Apple is sucessful is because it's been around so long, that most designers and presshouses are afraid to switch, which I can understand. Microsoft has proved with XP that an OS can be done right. Come on, features like transparency and memory protection should have been in Macs a long long time ago. Apple has bullied this industry into thinking that they are the only creative game in town. Its nice to see XP light a fire under their ass. I've only used XP since it came out, and life is good."

I dont think apple is in a position to bully anyone around with a 5% market share.

jayscheuerle

Jan 21, 2003, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by ipaul99
I dont think apple is in a position to bully anyone around with a 5% market share.

In context though, what marketshare of the publishing industry do you think they have? I'd say it was pretty high, though probably shrinking, and that's what Quark's comments are referring to...

Wash!!

Jan 21, 2003, 03:51 PM

I have yet to meet a "publisher" that uses PCs or is thinking on switching to them.

And I deal with quite a few.
:confused:

Rustus Maximus

Jan 21, 2003, 03:53 PM

The simplistic answer of course is that they (the print houses) will NEVER start using ID until you do. I'm sure the local hardware stores at one time carried more feed bags for horses than they did gas cans for the car...

It's all in how much we as designers force the rest of the industry to follow us into a bright new future.

Wash!!

Jan 21, 2003, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
The simplistic answer of course is that they (the print houses) will NEVER start using ID until you do. I'm sure the local hardware stores at one time carried more feed bags for horses than they did gas cans for the car...

It's all in how much we as designers force the rest of the industry to follow us into a bright new future.

I agree with you. I started to use ID for all my projects as the same way I used Freehand instead of illustrator.
I told my print houses that I was using these programs they either take my files or I'll take my business to someone who will...guess what now they support Freehand files with no problems as well as ID.
They will change if you will to keep your business.

greenfruit

Jan 21, 2003, 04:54 PM

i agree of course, but its abit of a chicken and egg thing.

we cant change untill repro house get it, and they wont untill we do.

i think we might be first to blink though.

brendog

Jan 21, 2003, 04:54 PM

I'm delighted to see that they're finally doing a little something to move the product forward. A friend sent me a link to a press release from 1998 where Quark pledged full support to OSX. Hopefull this move from the Dowager of Denver will have more meaning than their statements of 1998.

brendog

jchrise

Jan 21, 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Wash!!

I agree with you. I started to use ID for all my projects as the same way I used Freehand instead of illustrator.
I told my print houses that I was using these programs they either take my files or I'll take my business to someone who will...guess what now they support Freehand files with no problems as well as ID.
They will change if you will to keep your business.

Having dealt with many prepress houses requiring the acceptance of our ID files, I can say one resisted at first because of crawling processing times but soon realized their problem was their outdated Postscript 2 RIP. They decided to upgrade because they knew that sooner or later they'd be doing it anyway.

A large printer in Wisconsin welcomed our 64 page 4 color catalog with open arms. Aside from a few minor transparency flattening issues that were quickly resolved, the job ripped excellently. Using ID instead of Quark allowed me to do things I would never have attempted because of the massive production that would have been involved. The prepress department said they love ID files because they rip without the Quark quirks. This project was the largest our agency has ever produced from scratch and it was a joy using ID because it gave me the ability to experiment and implement. I shudder to think of the HUGE full page graphic compositions I would have had to do in Photoshop imported into Quark.

The thing is, I am a client of prepress houses and they realize if they want my business, they have to adapt because I can go anywhere for this service.

Speaking for myself and our agency, it's wonderful to be 100% OSX native with our applications and we never have to go Classic again.

In reference to publishers accepting ID files, it's not much of an issue since the majority we send to prefer PDF's. On rare occasion have needed to take a different approach, but it's been maybe twice and it turned out to be no big deal. Believe me, we aren't into creating more work for ourselves so we would have axed ID long ago if it didn't meet our needs. It's quite the opposite. It's such a good layout program that none of our designers want to think of going back.

I read an interesting article a few months ago on the switch to ID that Fossil (the watch company) made. Interestingly, when they were in the initial stages of considering moving to ID, the conversations they had with Quark were that Quark just didn't seem to care. So, all 100 designers of Fossil's staff are now designing with ID and they have ditched Quark altogether. Sounded like the same treatment I received from Quark when they contacted me with a customer satisfaction survey. I relayed to them the reason we were switching and not only did the marketing rep not care, but at time became combative with me. I had to keep reminding her that it was SHE who called me. The arrogance of that company is stupifying!

Someone mentioned a few posts back they are using XP and Quark...now there's a winning combination! Pleeeez...can something suck worse than that? To compare the elegance of OSX with the chunkiness of XP. If I had to go that route, I'd switch to a profession like ditch digging where I'd be sure a computer loaded with Windoze was never required for me to use.

barfoo

Jan 21, 2003, 10:29 PM

I have a dumb question.

Both FreeHand and PageMaker were Aldus products many moons ago.

How did Macromedia get FreeHand and Adobe get PageMaker?

Can someone point me to an "Undoing of Aldus" historical page or something? :)

~barfoo

Dandee

Jan 22, 2003, 02:28 AM

If Quark dies, and everyone must switch to Indesign because then the complete switch can be made to OSX... I'll predict that Adobe will get the same (or worse) attitude as Quark has now. On the Ifra in Barcelona last year, I was on an Adobe seminar and they almost smacked ID in my mouth. So... please let there rise a Phoenix from the ashes of Quarks burndown. I pretty much get a M$-feeling, and i don't like that!

Wash!!

Jan 22, 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by barfoo
I have a dumb question.

Both FreeHand and PageMaker were Aldus products many moons ago.

How did Macromedia get FreeHand and Adobe get PageMaker?

Can someone point me to an "Undoing of Aldus" historical page or something? :)

~barfoo

Freehand code and pagemaker code was not own by Aldus they just published the software.
When Aldus die they sold the Freehand code to macromedia and the Pagemaker code to Adobe.
Abobe also wanted the code for Freehand so they can kill it, but there were legal issues that stop them from doing so. In the end
Macromedia got it and Freehand 5 was born soon after.
the end

PS here is an execellent web site wth all freehand stuff:

http://www.freehandsource.com/

Cheers

eoliver

Jan 22, 2003, 01:30 PM

I believe one solution to the Quark fiasco would be an aquisition by Apple. Apple pulled off a miracle by releasing OS X the way they did. I don't understand why Apple has been focusing on the Film Industry when it already has the publishing industry in the bag.

Apple should buy Quark and put a slug to that gimp horse. Then we would have an application that would hopefully get frequent updates and support and would run twice as fast as ID.

Rustus Maximus

Jan 22, 2003, 02:00 PM

I believe you answered your own question as to why Apple is focusing so much on the Film/Video industry..."it already has the publishing industry in the bag".

Apple is trying to focus growth into future industries it does not have a large control over already, such as video/audio production. Besides why purchase a dead horse like Quark? Plus Apple could further anger one of their other chief software suppliers Adobe by once more intruding on their territory. Quark is dying a slow, painful death brought about by their own hand. Let them die. If Apple wants to get into the game with their own page layout program I am sure they could create an outstanding version on their own without having to revamp the lousy code of Quark.

Someone mentioned earlier that they were afraid Adobe would mutate into an uncaring Microshaft-like beast if Quark passes into oblivion. Well, if they do then someone will rise up out of the shadows and knock them off of their high-horse the same way Quark is being toppled from theirs. It's called the free market system...all in all it tends to work very well. People won't accept shoddy products and poor service forever. There is always someone around the corner who WILL be willing to go that extra mile for the customer. ;)

achbed

Jan 28, 2003, 12:09 AM

A large portion of site installs (especially at newspapers, magazines, and others) not only use XPress, but also use some sort of workflow management tools to go along with it. The first of these (and for YEARS the only one) was Quark Publishing System (QPS). This let managers control the workflow of creating QXP docs, and even had separate store editing using Quark CopyDesk. QPS 1 was an extremely stable product - it just worked. The problem came when Quark decided to pull a force-migration - they required QXP and QPS to be updated simultaneously. And QPS 2 gave only a few management differences beyond support for QXP4. 99% of the large shops didn't upgrade, because there was not enought features to justify the outlay of cash (something on the order of $1700 per seat fpr QPS, and $400 per seat for QXP, a total of over $2100 per user!). Eventually, most everyone moved over, but not for years. Now, QPS is managed by another company (Modulo Systems, which is conreolled by Fred's progeny). However, they have not released support for QXP5 yet - it's supposedly coming by the end of the 2nd quarter. But there's no forced upgrade here, so you may see a higher rate of adoption of QXP5 by the end of the year as the large sites finally move over. One other thing that's going to affect the sales numbers quoted above - most of the larger shops are moving to the Support+ program - give Quark some cash up front, and they'll give you the upgrades as they come out - this does not count as sales, just shipments. They've also changed the support+ program recently, so that smaller companies can get in on the deal. The highlight though, is you now pay once for support until the next software release comes out - and they've internally committed to a new upgrade release every 18 months. It would not suprise me to see 6.0 out by the end of September (just a guess). But from what I'm, hearing there is not just a port happening here - there's been a lot of rethinking about basic stuff. 6.0 looks like it's finally an answer to some of the deficiencies that ID has pointed out. We'll have to see how Fred's dementia turns out though - it's really sad to see a company with a decent product get totally trashed by a power- and money-hungry egotistical maniac.

mr.e

Jan 29, 2003, 12:08 AM

Ok - it just occured to me. If Apple can create their own browser and fuct MS, perhaps they've been creating a Quark killer; would that be sweet - and one could export Quark or ID files!!!

mangoman

Jan 29, 2003, 07:02 AM

Apple with a Quark killer? Nahh. But it WOULD be interesting. Meanwhile, I'm still looking forward to the demise of Quark. A quick, painful, embarrassing death.

Good riddance.

bunkersville

Feb 11, 2003, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by jayscheuerle

Alpha?!! If 10 monkeys typed 10 lines of code every 10 minutes, could they write a Cocoa Quark in 10 years?...

I think the people at Quirk have been spanking their monkeys, which is why they haven't gotten any work done. :D

And...regarding Fred what's-his-name, Quirks CEO, saying that if users aren't happy with the progress of his companies development, they could always use something else...following that with "but switching to Adobe ID would be like committing suicide"...frankly, i'll switch...cuz it beats dying a slow and painful death, which is what Quirk is doing to all its users.

Chuck

Feb 15, 2003, 05:53 AM

Oops - clicked 'submit' twice. Ignore this one.

Chuck

Feb 15, 2003, 05:53 AM

It's interesting reading this thread. 98% of seem to have switched to InDesign - but of all the DTPers, Ad agencies I know and work with (including myself), all but one of them have switched and the others aren't interested in switching.

I actually have InDesign 2 as well and tried it out with a job but I needed to open a Quark file with it and the result wasn't pretty. I've tried to just work with it on it's own for a while, but felt it was not as intuitive as Quark. Maybe I'm just so used to Quark now. I think the biggest problem with Quark is lack of multiple undos/history. That is something that everyone else implemented years ago, and seems like it should be simpler to code for Quark than others like Photoshop.

My biggest problem however is that I've ordered the PB17 and hoping it doesn't prohibit me from starting up in v9. Things might possibly change for me if that's the case.

But the result for the moment is that Quark stays my layout app, and I wait (however long it may be) for v6 - I do believe it will come sometime in the next twelve months or so.

Chuck
http://www.madebydesign.net

primalman

Feb 15, 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by Chuck
My biggest problem however is that I've ordered the PB17 and hoping it doesn't prohibit me from starting up in v9. Things might possibly change for me if that's the case.

But the result for the moment is that Quark stays my layout app, and I wait (however long it may be) for v6 - I do believe it will come sometime in the next twelve months or so.

Chuck
http://www.madebydesign.net

Downside.
Sorry to say, but the PB17 will not boot into OS9. You will have to use Classic.

Upside.
I have been using QXP4.1 in Classic under OSX.2 since September, and it really works pretty good. It still crashes, just like in OS9. It does goofy things with the redraw [QuickDraw and Quartz with QXP don't mix too well, but there is a XT fix]. And Clasic will crash out sometimes, it is OS9 after all. The downside to this upside is that you have to track two different font catalogs, and you have two different printing setups all the time, with the Chooser for Classic and Print Center for X.

But it is doable for the time being. I am moving our entire design ofice to X as soon as our new 1.42s get here, and QXP is the only thing we will use in classic. YAY!

mangoman

Feb 15, 2003, 03:22 PM

Chuck... I'll keep you in my prayers, buddy! ;)

BTW, nice website!

MacWhispers

Feb 16, 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by Chuck
Chuck
http://www.madebydesign.net

Chuck: That, sir, is an absolutely gorgeous web site... the best I've seen in a long, long time.

Hate to go off tpoic, but everyone here needs to click that link and see what an excellently executed, tastefully simple, and elegantly conceptualized web site can be. Then go back to fussing about QXP. :-)

Chuck

Feb 16, 2003, 06:23 AM

Thanks for your feedback on my site.

I try and treat all forms of design with the same kinds of principles whatever the medium. I do a lot of brochures etc, and often use a progression of ideas as the brochure unfolds, so that's something that I used in the site as well. It's kind of intriguing I guess. Not so much after you've been there before though.

But hey - don't go overboard! I'll get a big head and [U]nobody wants to see that.

Chuck

PS - Please switch back to the QXP discussion now! ;)

greenfruit

Feb 16, 2003, 06:40 AM

we are tipping our toes into indesign, i went to the Adobe inDesign roadshow in london last week, and apart from a slightly dodgy and too buzzword filled presentation, it was very useful.

Weve got a spare mac with 10.2.4 on it that indesign will go on when it arrives and we'll be trying a few jobs in ID. Im also updating my mac at work to 10.2.4 and trying quark within classic.

Ive had 10 on my home macs since it came out, but i dont use quark very much at home so ive yet to see how itll go.

Chuck

Feb 18, 2003, 05:09 PM

http://www.quark.com

Shame it says very little and nothing about release dates.

Chuck.
http://www.madebydesign.net

greenfruit

Feb 23, 2003, 07:32 AM

Anyone know if Quark6 will have PDF export built in?

I assume it will, as itd be quite embarrassing for Quark to have to use Distiller in classic for making PDFs.

I know you can print to PDFs in X, but you dont have the control to do Print or Press or Custom settings.

Also, anyone know if itll have transparency and stuff, i have a sneaky suspicion itll basically be Quark5 in OSX :-(

also, heres that article from macuser again

http://madeonamac.homeunix.net/~matthewm/blog/images/sml-goodbyemrquark.jpg

just to show how arrogant quark is.

beatle888

Feb 23, 2003, 04:31 PM

i think pdf's are a system feature. you no longer
need the third party application (quark) to have
its own pdf support. all you do is go to the print
dialog and save as pdf. apple's trying to make
it easy for quark :D

oh sorry, you knew that. um...custom pdf's?
good question...how come we dont have
distiller like options?

greenfruit

Feb 23, 2003, 05:05 PM

yep, the print to pdf in OSX could do with more control.

Maybe not necessarily native to the OS, but if quark 6 is to compete with indesign then it will need to be able to save PDF files.

indesign has essentially the same options as distiller and its not just the press or print settings which are neccessary, many publications have their own highly custom settings.

Quark will need this, and as OSX doesnt yet nativly have this level of customisation, quark will have to have some system of their own (and presumably the indignation of getting a license from adobe).

anyway, this is all speculation as none of this is general knowledge yet.

on playing with indesign i noticed the lovely hi res preview for images on screen. I also noticed that quark are offering soemthing similar for quark if you register 6 on the web. However, its a plugin, and if its anywhere near as clunky as the previous hires preview plugin for quark (4 or 5) then its a waste of time, this surely should be built into quark.

this just gives me a general indication the 6 will indeed be 5 but Cocoa? or Carbon? or whatever, the one that doesnt run in 9.