PDA

View Full Version : QuarkXPress 7 Coming Soon?


MacRumors
May 12, 2006, 02:45 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

According to Macworld.co.uk, Quark is gathering the press for an official launch event (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14617) for QuarkXPress 7 at the Congress Centre in London on June 2. As the site notes, this is the strongest evidence yet that Quark is readying to ship version 7 of their over-due flagship desktop publishing application.

Quark has seen greatly increased competitive pressure from Adobe's InDesign in recent years. A recent Macworld.co.uk poll (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14578&Page=1&pagePos=5) shows that consumers are split in general between the competing platforms.

morespce54
May 12, 2006, 02:47 PM
It's darn about time !!! ;)

CaptainScarlet
May 12, 2006, 02:48 PM
The question is though...Will it have a universal binary?

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 02:48 PM
Someone around here is attending that event after getting emails from Quark yesterday. Of course, the free food was the main attraction... but I expect some very interesting conversations to take place.


The question is though...Will it have a universal binary?

Yes.

SFVCyclone
May 12, 2006, 02:48 PM
If you work in Pre-press this is not a welcomed thing.:(

longofest
May 12, 2006, 02:50 PM
The question is though...Will it have a universal binary?

QuarkXPress 7 is indeed UB. See their website. It is in beta now, but should ship as UB. If it doesn't actually ship as UB, then it will be an update soon afterwards (kind of like Digital Performer 5 by MOTU in the music realm).

snkTab
May 12, 2006, 02:51 PM
According to Macworld.co.uk, Quark gathing the press for an official launch event for QuarkXPress 7 is the strongest evidence yet that Quark is readying to ship version 7.

Now that's a logical assumption.

dizastor
May 12, 2006, 02:57 PM
Too bad it's too late...

This sucker better really innovate to get anyone to consider it. All of the companies I've freelanced at over the last 2 years are either in the process of phasing out or already have phased out Quark completely.

I dread having to open a file in Quark these days.

Luckily my company recently purchased the wonderful Q2ID4 quark import plugin for InDesign. It works flawlessly 90% of the time.

Daschund
May 12, 2006, 02:57 PM
The question is though...Will it have a universal binary?

Quark said since the beginning that version 7 would be UB. They already got burned out enough when they took too long to release an OS X version and lost a ton of market share to InDesign.

longofest
May 12, 2006, 02:58 PM
According to Macworld.co.uk, Quark gathing the press for an official launch event for QuarkXPress 7 is the strongest evidence yet that Quark is readying to ship version 7.

Now that's a logical assumption.

Hey, you never can tell with Quark... they like to keep pushing crap back and pulling "Next Tuesdays" on us

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 03:01 PM
There are two things I want to know: how much is it (or our site license) going to cost? And when is v7.1 due out? ;)

When 6.0 was released, there were useful discounts for the upgrade for about a month or so but anyone who uses Quark day-in, day-out knows that they don't have a great track record on x.0 releases.

So... buy it straight away to save pennies but don't install it until the early adopters can show you their battle-scars.

Oh, and by the way. Yeah, we know Quark suxxorz and InDesign roolz...

SFVCyclone
May 12, 2006, 03:12 PM
Oh, and by the way. Yeah, we know Quark suxxorz and InDesign roolz...

If you're talking about Indesign CS1 then maybe yeah, but 2.o PSHHHHH, Theyre both on the same level really.

babble
May 12, 2006, 03:18 PM
I just hope this new version won'T ba as buggy as 6.5...

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 03:19 PM
If you're talking about Indesign CS1 then maybe yeah, but 2.o PSHHHHH, Theyre both on the same level really.

Having used InDesign for a few freelance projects recently, I would respectfully disagree. InDesign offers a level of control over so many aspects of typography and layout that Quark 6 can only dream of dreaming of.

However, Quark has some nice features that are not replicated in the current release of InDesign.


My take:

InDesign — creatively-inspiring but a bit cumbersome and palette-heavy.
Quark — clunky but extremely fast in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

Doctor Q
May 12, 2006, 03:33 PM
My take:

InDesign — creatively-inspiring but a bit cumbersome and palette-heavy.
Quark — clunky but extremely fast in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.That makes sense. One (inDesign) is relatively new (in the geologic sense), full of features but not refined over as much time. The other (QuarkXPress) is more of a legacy product, fine-tuned over the eons but more set in its ways.

FoxyKaye
May 12, 2006, 03:43 PM
Too bad it's too late...

I dread having to open a file in Quark these days.
Quark 6 really burned our magazine's production department, so much so everyone kept using 4.01 under Classic. I won't even mention Quark 5, which we thankfully avoided using.

I wonder if 7 will ship with a letter of apology as well?

I'd add to Dr. Q's assessment of Quark vs. InDesign by saying that when I first started using InDesign, it felt "cluttered."

lazyboy922
May 12, 2006, 03:58 PM
Whoopty doo. This software is so late, I don't know if anyone would bother even using it. Most people have converted to indesign by now, unless they have been using Quark since the beginning. Indesign just goes so well with illustrator and photoshop, I think it would be silly to go back to Quark now. They really hurt themselves by taking so long to upgrade their software. It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 04:03 PM
Most people have converted to indesign by now...

That's the perception but not the reality. Most estimates still put Quark at around 60% market-share. There is also some distortion in these figures due to InDesign being bundled with the Creative Suite.

The fat lady is still running through her scales...

starflyer
May 12, 2006, 04:07 PM
Quark Is Dead.

longofest
May 12, 2006, 04:15 PM
Quark Is Dead.

If dead == still alive, then perhaps yes.

sinisterdesign
May 12, 2006, 04:22 PM
i've used Quark on & off for years, but i've never LIKED the program. it's always seemed clunky, it's needlessly slow to get some things done and the quickkeys always seemed cryptic. maybe that was b/c i'm so used to adobe's quickkeys, but nonetheless it's still a little bassackwards.

Armaggideon
May 12, 2006, 04:29 PM
QuarkXPress 7 is indeed UB. See their website. It is in beta now, but should ship as UB. If it doesn't actually ship as UB, then it will be an update soon afterwards (kind of like Digital Performer 5 by MOTU in the music realm).

I've gone through three beta releases of QXP 7 during the past few months and the third, which I'm using now is the best so far :) And yes, it is UB. I haven't had the chance to test it on an Intel Mac yet though.

Version 7 is miles ahead of 6.5, it supports Unicode, Open Type and other handy improvements, too many to mention here. I really dread using 6.5 and below, since I work with plenty of languages and it's hell trying to cheat the bugger to display any different script acurately. Not to mention the rendering, which kind of reminds me of Windows:D Unfortunately, many client source files are Quark, so I have to play along.

I throw party every time I get to work in InDesign. Sadly, some of the designers of the original files haven't bothered to upgrade their fifteen-year-old habits but such is life;)

iGary
May 12, 2006, 04:31 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

According to Macworld.co.uk, Quark is gathering the press for an official launch event (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?home&NewsID=14617) for QuarkXPress 7 at the Congress Centre in London on June 2. As the site notes, this is the strongest evidence yet that Quark is readying to ship version 7 of their over-due flagship desktop publishing application.

Quark has seen greatly increased competitive pressure from Adobe's InDesign in recent years. A recent Macworld.co.uk poll (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?NewsID=14578&Page=1&pagePos=5) shows that consumers are split in general between the competing platforms.

If Quark only made PhotoShop. I'll be buying Quark 7 purely out of spite against Adobe - this means I go back to my Quark roots again after switching to InDesign.

Riot_Mac
May 12, 2006, 04:32 PM
If you work in Pre-press this is not a welcomed thing.:(

youre right! I hate Quark. We recently switched to InDesign and we are not looking back. Down with Quark!

iGary
May 12, 2006, 04:40 PM
If you work in Pre-press this is not a welcomed thing.:(

I've never heard one pre-pree person bitch abotu Quark.....ever.

I've heard plenty of bitching about InDesign.

I think Blue's comments regarding the two suites is dead on.

starflyer
May 12, 2006, 04:41 PM
If dead == still alive, then perhaps yes.

Ok ok ..Quark is not "all dead" just "Mostly dead". mostly dead means it's slightly alive. If it is all dead there is only one thing you can do...

root thru its pockets and look for loose change :D

Riot_Mac
May 12, 2006, 04:42 PM
I've never heard one pre-pree person bitch abotu Quark.....ever.

I've heard plenty of bitching about InDesign.

I think Blue's comments regarding the two suites is dead on.

thats funny because I work in pre-press and bitch about quark all the time. Like I said we switched ID and we are not looking back.

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 04:47 PM
...Like I said we switched ID and we are not looking back.

If you work in pre-press, surely you'll take what your clients send you. How can you 'switch' when most people are sending out PDFs these days anyway?

All of our printers would thank you and kiss your behind for sending them a MS Publisher file if it meant getting the job.

iGary
May 12, 2006, 04:49 PM
thats funny because I work in pre-press and bitch about quark all the time. Like I said we switched ID and we are not looking back.

That's funny as in what?

Jaffa Cake
May 12, 2006, 04:51 PM
Ok ok ..Quark is not "all dead" just "Mostly dead". mostly dead means it's slightly alive.A 60% market share wouldn't exactly say 'dead' to me. We're Quark users in our studio, we've dipped our toes in the InDesign pool but for the moment we're sticking with XPress. Both apps have their pros and cons (I wouldn't disagree too much with Blue's comments on their relative merits) and it can only be a good thing that there are two good apps competing. Quark users suffered too long because the company had a monopoly and became very, very slack – Adobe delivered it a much needed kick up the arse when it released InDesign.

I'd like to see InDesign continue to do well, and as things stand I'd like to work more with it. I hope though that both apps continue to coexist so neither software house become as complacent as Quark did a few years back – because if they do it's us who end up suffering with their bug-ridden software.

70355
May 12, 2006, 04:52 PM
It works flawlessly 90% of the time.

Do you know what "flawlessly" means?

Mass Hysteria
May 12, 2006, 04:52 PM
The trouble I have with Adobe is they feel the need to improve things that worked fine in the first place – and in the process, make them crap (for example, browsing images in PS).

Quark is guilty of it too, no doubt, just before release they'll re arrange the shortcuts to conflict with every system and application command they missed the last go!

ID2 is a great program – really great in the big and bloated sense. It's a shame but it runs like a dog on a PBG4, I simply get more work done with QX.

Or maybe I'm just a grumpy old git and should shuddup and get a new mac

Thanks for listening

Riot_Mac
May 12, 2006, 04:58 PM
That's funny as in what?

as in you said you never hear people bitch about quark because I do all the time.

the people who like quark just dont know any better. You have to be a fool to think that it is a better app than ID

Riot_Mac
May 12, 2006, 05:00 PM
If you work in pre-press, surely you'll take what your clients send you. How can you 'switch' when most people are sending out PDFs these days anyway?

All of our printers would thank you and kiss your behind for sending them a MS Publisher file if it meant getting the job.

we create ads in ID and accept PDFs from outside sources.

why would I send a pub file again?

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 05:11 PM
You have to be a fool to think that it is a better app than ID

Tell me something. Since when did InDesign allow two people to work on the same layout at the same time? Or even allow different layout sizes within the same project? Or even be able to synchronize text across different layouts within the same project? Or even to run smoothly on anything lower than a 1.25 G4?

What I hate about these kinds of discussions is that people insist that the issue is so clear-cut, so black and white. As a designer, sure I love InDesign's features but its interface is problematic and its model for transparency isn't as straightforward as the Quark 7 betas I've tried. It also isn't perfect on output by any means.

But on the other hand, when time is tight and you have multiple deadlines a day, Quark is a better tool for knocking stuff out. Of course, you have to know how to use it properly. ;)

weitzner
May 12, 2006, 05:12 PM
more universal binaries = goood news

Moof1904
May 12, 2006, 05:13 PM
I want FrameMaker for OSX...

Blue Velvet
May 12, 2006, 05:16 PM
I want FrameMaker for OSX...

Believe me, you're not alone. Not me personally, but many of our larger typesetters who handle the big academic and reference stuff for us.

Don't think it's going to happen, though.

Spagolli94
May 12, 2006, 05:19 PM
InDesign feels cluttered/awkward until you get used to it. Once you learn all the shortcuts and get used to all the great features, going back to Quark feels like traveling back in time to 1996. I've found that most people (if they give InDesign an honest try and really learn it) will NEVER consider going back to QXP.

The real key lies in how you use the app. Newbs tend to open it and try to use it like Quark. Well then it's not any better. It's just Quark with a different interface. The key is to change your workflow and actually use all the new features - only then will switchers truly appreciate InDesign.

Daschund
May 12, 2006, 05:39 PM
the people who like quark just dont know any better. You have to be a fool to think that it is a better app than ID


Wow! And the pre-press god, know it all has spoken, so we should all dump our software and buy what he tells us! :D

Anyway, I have friends in ad agencies and most of them uses Quark. One agency just changed to ID about a year ago and all I hear is complain about it (they changed because ID is cheaper). So, there you go, maybe you're not as right as you think... :)

dwsolberg
May 12, 2006, 05:46 PM
Just kidding, but I'm delighted that Quark 7 is UB, and I know from my own testing that it works a lot better than 6.5 with a lot of great new features. Of course, Quark 6.5 is a horrible program, and its PDF problems are a nightmare.

I used to teach InDesign CS 1, and I like the program's features, but it's bloated and slow, particularly on the Mac. Worse, CS 2 made it even slower. The real trouble with InDesign is that it takes a lot of training to teach all its useful features, and most people can't even use Quark's meager feature set to its fullest ability. Worse, InDesign allows you to do the same thing in multiple ways, which means that troubleshooting another person's document is much, much harder. And transparency is a truly dangerous tool on InDesign.

I hope that the Quark UB runs like a dream on Intel and PC hardware, and provides Adobe with a good example of what speed is. I'll be purchasing Quark 7.0 immediately just so I don't need to use Quark 6.5 anymore. Even in beta, it's soooo better than 6.5.

Doctor Q
May 12, 2006, 05:47 PM
Believe me, you're not alone. Not me personally, but many of our larger typesetters who handle the big academic and reference stuff for us.I was a big fan of FrameMaker too, even a beta tester for it a couple of times. Alas, no more.

manu chao
May 12, 2006, 05:48 PM
Working as a scientist, I constantly have to justify me using InDesign instead of Powerpoint. It is always me who has to adjust my colour management to whatever the others screw up in Powerpoint. And than I am not using Arial... (people must hate me)

dizastor
May 12, 2006, 05:51 PM
Do you know what "flawlessly" means?

I was referring to a case by case basis.

I open quark file A in InDesign using the converter, it converts without a flaw.

I open quark file B in InDesign using the converter, eps files have colors shifted and text boxes are off the page (those I consider flaws).

What I was saying is, 9 out of 10 times the operation goes off without a hitch. I was not saying that the plugin was flawless.

SFVCyclone
May 12, 2006, 06:10 PM
I've never heard one pre-pree person bitch abotu Quark.....ever.

I've heard plenty of bitching about InDesign.

I think Blue's comments regarding the two suites is dead on.

That it correct, there are some features in one program that are better or almost non-existant in the other. And about quark 7, supposedly its going to have profiling permanently on, in the pre-press production unless the person knows what they are doing, which in most cases they dont, its a bad thing, Or can some one correct me on this?

sparkleytone
May 12, 2006, 06:14 PM
Apple seems to have a special way of keeping things interesting. The transition to OS X and Quark's resulting snub of the new platform cost them a great deal of mindshare and I would venture to guess marketshare. Now they will be the first to support the Intel transition, with Adobe dragging way behind on all their products except LightRoom. Just when it seems a war has been won, a new battle breaks out with different leaders. And they say that the computer industry has settled and is now boring...

iomar
May 12, 2006, 07:09 PM
Even though Quark was my faveriot software at one time.. They just to log to move to OS X. Right now I love Indesign to much to go back to Quark. I think Quark should just let itself die.

iGuy
May 12, 2006, 07:19 PM
I want FrameMaker for OSX...

one can dream...

~iGuy

cait-sith
May 12, 2006, 07:53 PM
wow, you design guys (and girls) are almost as bad as us engineers and programmers when it comes to your tools.

adamfilip
May 12, 2006, 08:05 PM
the Creative Suite 2 includes indesign

since its bundled with Illustrator and photoshop.
why bare the expense of quark when a great DTP app is already included.

I hate working in quark. i find indesign easier and faster.

SFVCyclone
May 12, 2006, 08:24 PM
What I hate about these kinds of discussions is that people insist that the issue is so clear-cut, so black and white. As a designer, sure I love InDesign's features but its interface is problematic and its model for transparency isn't as straightforward as the Quark 7 betas I've tried. It also isn't perfect on output by any means.

But on the other hand, when time is tight and you have multiple deadlines a day, Quark is a better tool for knocking stuff out. Of course, you have to know how to use it properly. ;)


perfectly said, its all in the designer and how much they know the program. one feature I like about indesign is how it can save the working areas, and quark doesn't have that. And a feature that quark has that indesign doesnt is the updating part in quark where it can update all the images at once, indesign is one by one.

Silencio
May 12, 2006, 10:03 PM
I, for one, hope Quark 7 is successful and at least maintains Quark's current position in the marketplace. I've used both Quark 3.3 - 6.5 and InDesign 1.0 - CS2 pretty extensively, and both have their pros and cons which others have done a good job outlining here. I just want some credible competition in the marketplace: without Quark, Adobe would completely own the market for graphic design tools, and that's just not a healthy situation for anyone to be in.

Goliath
May 12, 2006, 11:14 PM
I'm reminded of the fact that the reason the iLife suite is so good for Mac is that it's intergrated. Same with FinalCut Studio.

ID is bundled with CS2 and the suite of tools are intergrated (still room for improvement though!) and makes my life easier and cheaper in the long run

Spagolli94
May 12, 2006, 11:42 PM
And a feature that quark has that indesign doesnt is the updating part in quark where it can update all the images at once, indesign is one by one.

Not true. This reminds me of designers at my agency who refuse to switch. They are constantly saying, "I don't like InDesign because it can't do X, Y, Z." In reality they should be saying, "I'm too busy/lazy/afraid to learn a better app, so I'm not sure if it can do X, Y, Z."

Having used both apps for years, there are VERY few things that Quark can do (or do better) that InDesign can't. On the contrary, there are TONS of features I love about InDesign that Quark either can't do or can't do well.

I'm not a Quark lover or InDesign lover. It's just software. But I have spent equal portions of my career using both. Each has positives and negatives, but I'd have to say InDesign wins hands down.

For those who don't like InDesign because they feel it's too bulky, try making your own custom workspaces and keyboard shortcut sets. That's the real beauty of the app... It's very customizable and shortcut friendly.

I had really high hopes for Quark 7. While it is definitely an improvement, for the most part it still suffers from the same old tired interface.

Eric5h5
May 12, 2006, 11:51 PM
I think Quark should just let itself die.

That's just silly. Ideally, Quark and InDesign would each have 50% of the market, and they both would fight hard for anything more (and forever fail to achieve it).

Still, Quark 5 was such an abomination that they ought to give anyone who was forced to use it free upgrades for life.

--Eric

supremedesigner
May 12, 2006, 11:58 PM
Good news: At my work, we're moving away from Quark 4 (Classic) to Indesign. :)

Bad news: It's still alive!!!!!! :mad:

Highland
May 13, 2006, 12:04 AM
InDesign feels cluttered/awkward until you get used to it. Once you learn all the shortcuts and get used to all the great features, going back to Quark feels like traveling back in time to 1996. I've found that most people (if they give InDesign an honest try and really learn it) will NEVER consider going back to QXP.

The real key lies in how you use the app. Newbs tend to open it and try to use it like Quark. Well then it's not any better. It's just Quark with a different interface. The key is to change your workflow and actually use all the new features - only then will switchers truly appreciate InDesign.
I agree with that. I switched a few years ago (when most of the industry, and the places I was freelancing at did).

One thing I'm surprised not many people are talking about is Xpress's UI vs InDesign's UI... I prefer using InDesign these days, but it features a massive, ugly, giant bloated interface with tiny palettes for every single aspect of every single thing you might want to control. This contrasts Xpress or Photoshop, where you only really need to have 3 palettes up to do 90% of your work. InDesign is a complete mess (and very slow), but it's workable. Certainly not the streamlined workhorse it's sometimes portrayed to be.

On the other hand... Quark took ages to move to OS X, but in doing so (I believe) they moved to Xcode and possibly even used a cocoa code base. This means they're in a very good position to take full advantage of OS X's features in the immediate future. Adobe might not be in that position for a few years.

Either way, it's good that both have to fight for our love.

winmacguy
May 13, 2006, 12:06 AM
If you're talking about Indesign CS1 then maybe yeah, but 2.o PSHHHHH, Theyre both on the same level really.
CS2 is a major improvement over CS1 IMO. CS3 is actually pretty good although just a bit more refined so not a major breakthrough (well that was the impression I got from my breif use of it.)

winmacguy
May 13, 2006, 12:11 AM
i've used Quark on & off for years, but i've never LIKED the program. it's always seemed clunky, it's needlessly slow to get some things done and the quickkeys always seemed cryptic. maybe that was b/c i'm so used to adobe's quickkeys, but nonetheless it's still a little bassackwards.
The quick keys on Quark are ********** cryptic on Quark when compared to the Adobe package although once your used to them they are relatively easy. It is just a bit of a mind grind when flicking between say Quark and Photoshop.

winmacguy
May 13, 2006, 12:21 AM
Wow! And the pre-press god, know it all has spoken, so we should all dump our software and buy what he tells us! :D

Anyway, I have friends in ad agencies and most of them uses Quark. One agency just changed to ID about a year ago and all I hear is complain about it (they changed because ID is cheaper). So, there you go, maybe you're not as right as you think... :)
If all they are doing is complaining I would say it would be a very bad case of PEBKAC rather than issues with the application.;)

winmacguy
May 13, 2006, 12:29 AM
I agree with that. I switched a few years ago (when most of the industry, and the places I was freelancing at did).

One thing I'm surprised not many people are talking about is Xpress's UI vs InDesign's UI... I prefer using InDesign these days, but it features a massive, ugly, giant bloated interface with tiny palettes for every single aspect of every single thing you might want to control.
I might be wrong but I think you can do that with InDesign CS3. At the time I was using it in an interview I got the impression that they had improved that part of the GUI although I didn't have enough time to muck around experimenting. I know that I found that the pallete organisation part of CS3 was a gradual improvement on CS2 in InDesign.

maxp1
May 13, 2006, 12:37 AM
My company ditched Quark a couple years ago. Mostly because it's Applescript support is terrible and slow. There are many things that are impossible to automate and it's hard to code even basic tasks.

InDesign's Applescript support is MUCH better. The object model is better organized and easier to understand. And much faster too. Tasks that were converted from Quark script to InDesign scripts run about twice as fast.

That's why we changed. I'm still more comfortable working in Quark but the time savings and scripting ease far outweigh giving up years of learning the ins and outs of a program.

MistDragonCA
May 13, 2006, 12:45 AM
And this is a good thing...why? Honestly, Quark is dead if you ask me. Adobe has really impressed me with InDesign and I have no desire to ever go back to that antiquated piece of crap again.

Blue Velvet
May 13, 2006, 01:14 AM
Where Quark have really failed, apart from producing shoddy software and execrable customer support, is the education market where they overpriced their product and essentially forced educational institutions to drop it in favour of Creative Suite. So you've got a lot of young talent coming through that is far more comfortable in Adobe's UI than Quark's.

Sometimes, I wonder how well InDesign would have done if Adobe didn't have the other design apps to bundle and integrate around it. Probably not that well, is my guess.

Anyway, those of us who use this stuff to make a living are usually wedded to a workflow precisely because it doesn't interfere with their creative thinking.

Because of pressure of work, I literally cannot take the time to fully immerse myself in InDesign at the moment, apart from the occasional freelance project but when I do I almost get as giddy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2201991&postcount=14) as this again. :D

G.Kirby
May 13, 2006, 02:44 AM
And this is a good thing...why? Honestly, Quark is dead if you ask me. Adobe has really impressed me with InDesign and I have no desire to ever go back to that antiquated piece of crap again.

Quark ain't dead yet. I have had info that several pubishers are dropping InDesign and going back to Quark for version 7. This is on the strength of the Beta that was released. I am off to the launch on the 2nd so I will see what is what when I get there.

As we are an education insitution we will be running InDesign and Quark side by side but only giving formal lectures in Quark.....which is (like it or not) STILL the Daddy.

winmacguy
May 13, 2006, 02:56 AM
I see 1 of Quarks benefits also being 1 of InDesign's faults in the bloat of the application for InDesign and relevant lack of for Quark. For all the pros and cons for either app- InDesign user here- I look forward to seeing how the market reacts to version 7 of Quark and what Adobe comes up with for CS4?
The main reaon I had/have for my dislike of Quark in principle is all of their years of arrogance and snobbery of not listening to their customers and updating the application over time or to coincide with the release of OS X. I my book if you piss your customers off you lose them to the opposition and no matter how will you seek to improve your product it takes a while for those customers to return especially when the opposition can produce a very capable application to make your work flow easier.

G.Kirby
May 13, 2006, 03:10 AM
Yes, Quark's customer services has been abysmal and for the most part still is. We have over 120 seats of Quark 6.5 and all are from lab packs. Talking to a sales rep about Quark 7 and possible prices for education lab packs and I was told that upgrades will not be made available for lab packs. So we will need to buy 120 new seats for Quark 7 leaving us with 120 useless seats of Quark 6.5……which we can’t even sell because it is a breach of the license agreement.

This type of crap MUST change. :mad:

Blue Velvet
May 13, 2006, 03:14 AM
...I was told that upgrades will not be made available for lab packs.

Same with Adobe apps and once Macromedia. There are no upgrades for educational pricing.

We're a registered charity so purchase our software through a specialist broker — they're all educational licenses and when CS3 is released it means buying the entire package all over again.

717
May 13, 2006, 04:11 AM
My take:

InDesign — creatively-inspiring but a bit cumbersome and palette-heavy.
Quark — clunky but extremely fast in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

Well said

G.Kirby
May 13, 2006, 04:21 AM
Same with Adobe apps and once Macromedia. There are no upgrades for educational pricing.

We're a registered charity so purchase our software through a specialist broker — they're all educational licenses and when CS3 is released it means buying the entire package all over again.


We were able to get upgrades for our lab packs when we went from v4.1 to v6. I think it's a bit ****** for the Quark consumer if they do go back on the chance to upgrade. Surely it would make good business sense to get designers, printers and educators into Quark 7 as easily and cheaply as possible.

central183
May 13, 2006, 05:09 AM
Q-u-a-r-k W-h-o?

central183
May 13, 2006, 05:18 AM
Who gives a flying frog about Quark.

The few people who are interested about Quark 7 are the poor slobs still stuck doing newspaper and magazine work.

The internet is steadily ruining magazine sales. Quark's days are numbered. The print work that is left will be taken by InDesign.

Anyone like me who has lived through the whole 4.1 Classic episode will be forever bitter and resentful to even hear the name Quark. New logos, CEOs and attitudes can never change the soiled image of this company. Most designers who had a choice, left Quark for InDesign years ago. The only designers that use this miserable program are forced to by their bosses who are terrified of retooling the whole house.

I remember when we retooled our firm. I had to put enormous pressure on the boss to get him to finally switch to InDesign. He was very set in his ways, even though Quack was crap. Looking back though, he's so happy I did.

Blue Velvet
May 13, 2006, 05:21 AM
The few people who are interested about Quark 7 are the poor slobs still stuck doing newspaper and magazine work.

You're so wrong about that, it's laughable.

psycho bob
May 13, 2006, 06:31 AM
I'm sure I'm alone but I don't see Quark 7 and Indesign as direct competitors in the form of features or target market only in the sense they are both generally speaking DTP tools. I didn't word that very well but will endeavour to explain.

As a creative tool I find Indesign to be superior especially if you are savvy with the Photoshop way of working. The integration with the other Adobe apps is welcome but as a stand alone tool I find it very appealing and have used it since version 1. I don't buy the argument that it is bloated from a performance perspective, although I did find CS1 a little duff, when you weigh in how powerful it is I find it's peformance good and have used it happily on a 1GHz Powerbook.

Quark is the ideal prepress/print tool, it is fast to use (for the most part but I don't find it intuitive at all) and easy on the eye. I first used it at version 4 and in my mind it just hasn't evolved as it shold have since. Quoting 60% market share is one thing but I highly doubt the vast majority are using the latest version so the actual number of updates and market share would be reducing. I know a number of printers that actually bought up stock of Apple's OS9 compatible machines just to extend the use of 4.1 (still the best version IMHO). Most of Quarks power features are behind the scenes or for output it simply isn't a designers tool for the most part. Adobe has done well to make the impact they have with ID, the ability to bundle with other apps is a huge advantage as is making the undoubted king of image manipulation software for professional use.

The Quark mindset dates back to the dawn of DTP and hasn't really changed, I like version 7 but it isn't revolutionary it can't afford to be. Quark are not in a position to out Adobe Adobe.

From an education level Quark is still taught actvely (although not indepth) in the UK which is very important as this is where new talent is bloodied. As long as this is the case Quark will always have a place as it won't just be its stalwart users in its camp. Quark must realise though that the majority of students who get to use ID do favour it for its features and Photoshop like layout. If your a life long Quark user it is indeed intuitive if your not then it can be a real pain in the ass.

Quark has loyal users and rightly so but this is maybe born out of the fact they invested heavily in it prior to ID and not a reflection on its development progress. Framemaker is Adobe's real competitor to Quark if only they marketed it better. I think it would have Quark beat hands down as it doesn't try to be the all tools to all men that ID does.

As Blue Velvet said young designers favour ID. Quark in many ways is old school thinking and marketing (price is a huge issue) and it will take more than a logo change to swing that around.


On a completely separate issue Apple's education licensing does allow for upgrades through the use of retail upgrades. The license type however alters to reflect this. Can you not upgrade Adobe and Quark apps through the use of retail upgrade packs cheaper then buying all new education licenses? I've never had to do it so could be talking out my posterior but for individual users this is an option :)

G.Kirby
May 13, 2006, 07:03 AM
The few people who are interested about Quark 7 are the poor slobs still stuck doing newspaper and magazine work.

The internet is steadily ruining magazine sales.


To say that you are so wrong about this statement is to put it mildly. There is more print than ever before and it is still growing. Yes the internet is the information highway but it will NEVER kill print. Print will continue to grow and grow as reproduction cost come down and down.

You really need a reality check :p

Mass Hysteria
May 13, 2006, 07:04 AM
InDesign — creatively-inspiring but a bit cumbersome and palette-heavy.
Quark — clunky but extremely fast in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.
So true! My thoughts exactly. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=156524&page=2) (Post 31)
Indesign is great for designery work – fiddly to use.
Quark has less features than ID, but is quick for 'banging out' artwork.
It just depends what you need to do.

If they keep adding features without refining the code, will we end up with an application that can do 'everything' (very badly), needs Deep Thought (http://www.digitalthoughtsw.com/DTS/42/dt.html) to run it, and this screen (http://cg.calit2.uci.edu/mediawiki/index.php/Image:HIPerWall_teaser1.jpg) to hold all the palettes.

Josias
May 13, 2006, 08:00 AM
My dad runs 4.1 (for Windows) on his PC. It is not very impressive, and compared to Keynote 2, it is nothing. I believe 7 will be better, but so far, I would never pay that much for a program (my dad paid $300 for it through someone that didn't use it more). BTW. what sort of hardware dongle does 6.5 use. 4.1 for Windows uses a parallel port.

psycho bob
May 13, 2006, 08:05 AM
My dad runs 4.1 (for Windows) on his PC. It is not very impressive, and compared to Keynote 2, it is nothing. I believe 7 will be better, but so far, I would never pay that much for a program (my dad paid $300 for it through someone that didn't use it more). BTW. what sort of hardware dongle does 6.5 use. 4.1 for Windows uses a parallel port.

Comparing Quark Xpress to Keynote 2 is like comparing chalk and cheese. The Corporate and education licenses discussed for the most part here don't require a dongle. I'm not even sure 4.1 for mac did in general. I assume the vast majority of dongles these days will be USB.

The Red Wolf
May 13, 2006, 09:44 AM
In the imortal words of the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons... "Worst Application Ever!"

Quark sucks. Quark makes crap bloatware that isn't even worthy of being called a virus. I've troubleshot that damn application in its many forms and each is the spawn of a dead pug bred with the excrement of stock brokers. I hate the application, I hate the company, the fact that the word Quark appeared on Mac Rumors makes me want to... Why am I even bothering to post about this?

::Mad giggles::

~Rotwulf~

joemama
May 13, 2006, 09:53 AM
Quark 6 really burned our magazine's production department, so much so everyone kept using 4.01 under Classic. I won't even mention Quark 5, which we thankfully avoided using.


Well said. We did the same thing - had to use 4.0. InDesign is by far a superior product and Quark missed the boast on their own arrogance. Most professionals haven't touched Quark in years, and have no interest in switching back.

Let's just hope Adobe learned from Quark's mistake and goes universal soon.

joemama
May 13, 2006, 09:57 AM
remember Adobe GoLive 1.0 and how horrible it was, and all us DreamWeaver folk loved to trash it?

narco
May 13, 2006, 11:36 AM
Arguing about Quark vs. InDesign is like arguing about the Mac vs. PC, religion, or politics. Everyone has their preference, so arguing about it isn't going to change anything (much). I've been using Quark for 11 years now and I'm sure if I had been using InDesign for that long I'd be a pro at that too.

I gave InDesign a try after people said I could use Quark shortcuts and import files, but it really didn't help any. My coworkers at my old job used to think I was a robot because I only use keyboard commands and can do any job a 1/3 of the time it took for them to do the same thing.

The national magazine I work for only sends PDFs to the printer, so it really doesn't matter what program I use. A lot of people tell me "oh, I hate the way Quark handles PDF files" but I have YET to have a problem with any of my files. They come out exactly how I want them to, and that's all I need.

One thing's for sure, Quark better lower their educational prices. The college I went to went with InDesign because it was cheaper. Quark really did screw up over the past few years, but I think they're starting to make up for it now. A little competition never hurt.

Fishes,
narco.

central183
May 13, 2006, 12:05 PM
To say that you are so wrong about this statement is to put it mildly. There is more print than ever before and it is still growing. Yes the internet is the information highway but it will NEVER kill print. Print will continue to grow and grow as reproduction cost come down and down.

You really need a reality check

Concerning magazine sales.

I've looked for hard proof on the net and have found some interesting sources. Perhaps the best information I've found is from ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) found at the magazine.org link below. It shows that over all sales of the magazines it tracks hit a peak in 1999 at 372,115,830. Since then, sales have gone up and down to the current point of 362,281,559.

One article at Think Secret suggests that Mac Magazine Sales are down, which is a trend with computer magazines. Many technically advanced people are going to go to the net for computer information.

One interesting point from the Forbes article was how many publishers are "padding" their sales figures. ARE MAGAZINES REALLY SELLING, OR DO THEY GIVE A LOT OF COPIES AWAY? Think Secret also pointed this out. As sales fall, many publishers send copies out to people who don't really want them. This artificially pads circulation numbers to convince advertisers to buy more ads.

What makes you think that there are more magazines [print] than ever? Because you see a whole rack of them at the store? Sure there are more titles than ever, but as you look at the big picture, the over all number of sales are dropping slowly. Magazine are struggling to compete with not only the internet, but actually more so with TV.

You can find your links to counter what I've said. I welcome it. I don't know if I'm 100% right, but I do see a trend of less magazine sales all together. I did not have time to look at newsprint sales, but I believe they are falling too.

If you look ahead. More people will get broadband with TV and internet which will continue to take a bite out of traditional media. Also consider that energy prices are set to skyrocket. Magazines are heavy and shipping will add to their price.

http://www.magazine.org/Circulation/circulation_trends_and_magazine_handbook/1318.cfm

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0604magazines.html

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia/archives/2005/12/forbes_circulat.html

Konradx
May 13, 2006, 12:19 PM
Im suprised so many people know about Quark. Im from the printing industry, and ive been to Print Tradeshows, and have seen this program since its very early betas. And yes i dread Quark, especially the older versions, which didnt include simple commands such as undo more than once. I love InDesign, and i dont think Quark will regain the marketshare it once had. Though there is a portion of the Printing industry that finds a program, incorporates it into there workflow, and changes the program once every 10 years. If it works, dont fix it. So there is still a chunk of companies using old version of Quark who may upgrade to 7.

The strength of InDesign is the way it works so well with Acrobat, Illustrator, and Photoshop.

joemama
May 13, 2006, 01:45 PM
One thing's for sure, Quark better lower their educational prices. The college I went to went with InDesign because it was cheaper.

Narco - good points. Everyone has their own opinions and I don't think people are trying to convert others, just stating their view. I think a Macrumor's poll would be fun though (if there isn't one already).

As far as education, I can tell you from a person who worked (and still does freelance) in the print industry and now teaches. We use InDesign (unfortunately on PCs), but the main reason was the cost and ease of installation and learning curve. That and many students already have used photoshop in one capacity or another and are family with adobe's tools.

jrath1
May 13, 2006, 02:56 PM
I've used both and they seem to be no different to me. I'm still the one that has to create the artwork.

areyouwishing
May 13, 2006, 05:09 PM
I've never heard one pre-pree person bitch abotu Quark.....ever.

I've heard plenty of bitching about InDesign.

I think Blue's comments regarding the two suites is dead on.

I'll bitch.

Horrible Postscript support,
horrible color management (not so much with 7).
Horrible PDF support. (really, why would i want to have presets for outputing PDFs?)
Horrible bleed support.
Horrible link placement support.
Cumbersome Links Window... yes, i really DO want to update all of them, but please ask me for each link.
Horrible Fonts support... yes, linotype really has loaded that font.
Quark 7s transparency makes rasters, even when it doesn't need to.

Oh yeah, i've been using ID for 3 years, and quark for well over 6.

TopGear
May 13, 2006, 05:28 PM
Oh man, this is great news.

Wait a second... What's Quark again? BECAUSE EVERYONE I KNOW HAS SWITCHED TO INDESIGN.

I write this as a working journalist / designer of 10 years. I was trained on Quark. I loved Quark. I did some great work on Quark. But in the past four or five years it has become irrelevant for most working designers I know. It's a joke. Too little, too late.

beatle888
May 13, 2006, 11:45 PM
If you work in Pre-press this is not a welcomed thing.:(


exactly my thoughts. i remember talking to quark many times...shaking my head as they apologized for problems their software alone caused the production houses. quark caused the industry so much money with their bugs that everyone i talked to stopped buying updates after 4.4 (i believe thats the correct update). quark 6 alright but i hate it. its so simple its rediculous. it take more time to prepare files for production rather than using indesign simply because it cant make a simple semi transparent drop shadow. so there software has been in its frozen state for years and now they wanna tell us that they finally know how to do drop shadows? indesign is worlds away. WORLDS.

by the way, how often do you use layout spaces...i doubt any production department would. the work flow just doesnt make it an easy solution. typically your gonna have more than one artist on the project and if all the different layouts are in one document than how are the managers going to split the project up? also, what about quark syaing that they where gonna give up the mac platform and only write for windows? remember that? right around OSX came out.

cgmpowers
May 14, 2006, 12:04 AM
There's only one thing I really like about Quark... I like the ability to have multiple layouts and have those multiple layouts have different sizes. For example, I did a direct mail piece that had multiple parts and all were different sizes.. Brochure, Business Card, Letterhead, envelope, return envelope and reply card were all in ONE document. Its a lot easier to have a multipiece project in one document than having several seperate files..

I am hoping InDesign CS3 incorporates that feature.. Its VERY handy!!

However, I prefer the ease of use of InDesign...

i've used Quark on & off for years, but i've never LIKED the program. it's always seemed clunky, it's needlessly slow to get some things done and the quickkeys always seemed cryptic. maybe that was b/c i'm so used to adobe's quickkeys, but nonetheless it's still a little bassackwards.

beatle888
May 14, 2006, 04:00 AM
But on the other hand, when time is tight and you have multiple deadlines a day, Quark is a better tool for knocking stuff out. Of course, you have to know how to use it properly. ;)


actually, indesign allows you to work extremely fast. try using the eyedropper to apply text attributes or creating an object style. i love the ability to nest style sheets this allows you to apply multiple styles to a single line of text...very helpful for catalog work. and if you have a heavily designed brochure...its easy to get those design elements into indesign or even create them right there in the page layout application. i do sometimes think that its a bit much but then i think wow i love this application. you can actually link to a word document and if someone changes the word document to make edits, the links pallet will let you know to update the linked word document just as if it was a graphic...and the text automatically updates.

you know whats strange...the only way to view the links information in quark is through a limited dialog box...i dont know, its almost to simple for me at this point. i know the application very well, use it every week day for the last fifteen years or more. its a drag to have to use it after getting use to indesign. indesign isnt really that cumbersome, only on the surface. if you hide the tabs and just use the tool bar at the top of the screen.

maybe its just because i think indesign is a lot of fun to use. it sorta makes production a little more interesting. quark is sorta bla bla bla, boring and indesign is sort of exciting to use. and it really does allow you to be more efficient but you better have a nice system to run it.

Leoff
May 14, 2006, 05:41 AM
This is gonna be funny.

Half the comments in here are "Quark Sucks!" "Too Little, Too Late!" "It's an antiquated piece of crap!" "Never going back to Quark!"...

... yet I bet a majority of those complainers will be among the first in line to buy Quark 7 after their eyes pop out of their heads when they see all the "wow!" features it has.

I have no idea about the new version of the program or it's abilities, but I'm not stupid enough to trash the new version when I haven't even seen it yet.

This kinda reminds me of the XBox 360 vs. Playstation 3 battle. I've seen a ton of people trashing PS3 simply because it's late. Yet you KNOW sales will go through the roof when it's finally released.

central183
May 14, 2006, 06:23 AM
To say that you are so wrong about this statement is to put it mildly. There is more print than ever before and it is still growing. Yes the internet is the information highway but it will NEVER kill print. Print will continue to grow and grow as reproduction cost come down and down.

You really need a reality check

Kirby, I seem to be proving you wrong. I've found more links and evidence that newspaper and magazine sales are down. Before I turn this into a flame war I will take into consideration that I'm in America and you are in the UK where magazine sales may be more popular. I am having a harder time finding circulation figures for the UK. In America at least, sales of printed material do seem to be falling.


Here's an interesting blog pointing towards steady newspaper decline along with the general corruption of the industry concerning padding circulation numbers to lure advertisers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2105344/

Another article point to newspaper decline

Newspaper circulation has declined for decades as consumers have found new places to cull news and information. Edward Wasserman of Washington and Lee University writes that newspapers have lost 8 percent of their circulation in the last decade and that 12 of the 25 largest newspapers lost circulation last year.

http://www.winning-newsmedia.com/newspapr.htm

More here:

The biggest publishers may show the largest declines: Gannett Co., which owns about 100 newspapers, says it will be down "a couple of points" from last year's levels. Circulation at Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times is likely to be off in excess of 6% of its most recently reported figures. Belo Corp.'s Dallas Morning News expects to report daily circulation down 9% and Sunday circulation down 13% from the year-earlier period. All projected figures are for the six months ended in March.

The losses come at a time when Americans have many news outlets that didn't exist 20 years ago, including cable-television news channels and Internet sites, as well as email and cellphone alerts. Many newspapers have substantial and free online sites offering much of what is in the printed paper. These sites might not hurt readership overall, but they can erode a newspaper's paying audience.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB111499919608621875-72vA7sUkzSQ76dPiTXytqgOMS5A_20050601.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

I've focused on Newsprint and Magazines, but look at other areas. I just bought a printer and the entire manual was on the disk. I've seen this several times with products I've purchased. Electronic manuals are done easily in InDesign. Quark and all it's prepress crapola is not needed.

The one area that I'm not familiar with is packaging design, which is why Blue Velvet might have decided to poke at me. Considering that we as consumers buy more junk then ever, it would be logical that there is more of a demand for boxes, tins and jars with product design. In that respect "print" is growing. However you can not convince me that newspapers and magazines are growing more than ever.

Thus I stick with my original assessment that hard times are ahead for Quark while InDesign takes market share. At the same time magazine and newspaper circulation will drop, putting a squeeze on the whole industry. Sooner or later advertisers will come to grips with this and start redirecting more advertising dollars away from print. A fall out will follow.

Print designers need to wake the hell up and start learning HTML, PHP and SQL

Print wont die today, next week or even next year. But it will suffer a slow decline over the next 2 decades.

Play Ultimate
May 14, 2006, 07:54 AM
I'm not in this industry and thus don't need either one of these applications. But being a Mac Guy, I don't understand why this is rated negative in such a high percentage.
Regardless of your preferred app, this is good news for Mac as it is another company developing for UB, which will only help the transition.
Additionally, it is always good to have competition. Quark lots its footing, in part, due to the lack of competition. This announcement will only help keep InDesign current and fresh.

cmcconkey
May 14, 2006, 08:29 AM
I have been in the printing field since 1997 and all that time I have been in pre-press.

The pre-press environment that I work in is one that does a lot of over and over printing, and we let designers come up with the grand ideas for the new look of things. We are an under staffed shop that has 30+ years of pre-press experience and we are the ones that make it work after the designers send us there "idea" our nightmare. We just recently got in a redesigned job for our number 2 client. Their designer send in a great looking design but as soon as we put it through our Celebra rip it looked at it and scratched its head and gave up. So we start going through it and with 2 of us knowing Illustrator well enough, to do about anything we could ever need in it and be asleep, we started digging around in the file and found no problems. We export it to an EPS and send it through Illustrator and everything works great. We export a PDF from Indesign and the rip still does the same. But we make an eps of it and distill it using Adobe Distiller everything is fine.

From the day that the Creative Suite was introduced and available to be purchased I had a copy. We got this knowing that the designers of the world would be torturing us with buggy files that would not work just as they did with Quark 5 and Quark 6 (before the updates). I was right and about a month later I had disasters coming in left and right from designers, built in Indesign. The only way we could get it to go through our Scitex Rip was to convert it into an Illustrator eps and send it that way. Indesign has been a thorn in my side ever since it came out because it has so many cute and shiny things you can do, which don't work in a production environment like what I am in every day. One might say that it was our rip and it is outdated and not as compatible as is needed. Well we are now running a full Fuji setup that includes the Fuji Celebra rip. The Celebra rip is built on the Adobe 3016 rip system, which is used to make the PDFs in Acrobat 7.0. Even with this rip we have MANY problems in getting Indesign files through the rip. But if we get it out of an InDesign format, and into either an eps placed into quark or a distilled PDF, everything runs like a dream. I have tried many times to use InDesign in some of my freelancing, because I know that there has to be something good about it to come from the great people that brought us Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat, but when I do work in it I get really annoyed about how they tried to put PageMaker and Illustrator in a blender and create a Quark killer but instead got a mess.

I am not sure what everyone sees in InDesign but obviously there is something to it because it is taking hold at many places in the business. I have worked with all the beta versions of Quark 7 and the first is the only one that I had a problem with (crashing every other keystroke). Once beta version 2 came out, I downloaded it and saw GREAT improvements that have thought would be of great use for many years even back in the Quark 3 days. I was also in on the Quark 7 webinar that showed off the pure power of Quark 7. There were many things in it that were very great additions and everything was running very quick. I got curious so I stopped paying attention to the clues as to what kind of computer the speaker was running it on. I noticed that it was on a powerbook or MBP and everything was running as slick as it would on my Dual 2.5 G5 with 4 gig of ram. This really impressed me, so much that I am willing to drop the money the day Quark is released to get a copy for me to start testing with my rip. Anyone that has gone over to the InDesign camp either by force or just by Quark letting them down over the years, I believe that if they were to get their hands onto Quark 7 and work with it they would be back with Quark.

Christopher

G.Kirby
May 14, 2006, 08:40 AM
Central138, Your evidence is strong and my hat goes off to you. It does look like magazine and newspaper sales are in decline in the US and I apologise for my earlier statement, it was flippant and rude. I have tried to find evidence for other nations and have so far been unsuccessful.

However, I think what we should be looking at is not the sales of magazines, newspapers, books etc but the variety that is available. For example, even if a magazine’s sales are in decline someone still has to design it. Due to the vast array of topics that are available in magazines, newspapers, books etc design for print is still a very healthy business. Each year we have about 40 students graduate for our Graphic Design course and almost all find work in the graphics industry. The vast majority of placement is in design for print. Several of our graduates do design purely for web and it is a skill that we teach each all our students but demand from employers is primarily for design for print.

So even though your evidence is showing a decline in print sales my experience is that variety of print is growing so Quark is still an important part of the designers tool box.:)

G.Kirby
May 14, 2006, 08:48 AM
Anyone that has gone over to the InDesign camp either by force or just by Quark letting them down over the years, I believe that if they were to get their hands onto Quark 7 and work with it they would be back with Quark.

Christopher

This is the feed back that I am getting from my contacts in the industry too.

zweigand
May 14, 2006, 10:32 AM
One thing I wish InDesign did that Quark does beautifully ...resize documents from the upper left hand corner instead of from the middle. Nothing bugs me more! Other than that I love InDesign. Quark 6.5 is horrible. The refresh problems are almost as bad as 4 in classic, the AppleScript support sucks, can't even draw a line and align it with the ruler, and there are so many other minor annoyances that just make it frustrating as hell to work in. Do they fix these things? No, you are expected to buy Quark 7. With all the new stuff in Quark 7 I can't imagine how buggy it will be. They better get their act together.

70355
May 14, 2006, 10:45 AM
Why am I even bothering to post about this?
I was wondering that myself.

Possible reasons:
1) You have nothing better to do
2) You want to waste bandwidth

G.Kirby
May 14, 2006, 11:26 AM
Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion, or are you just talking out of your a** again? :rolleyes:

We have very strong connections with the design industry through out the UK, USA and Europe. We also actively contact ex-students to see how they are getting on and incorporate their feed back into our course. The single most common request is TEACH MORE QUARK.

My a** has spoken :D

central183
May 14, 2006, 11:36 AM
So even though your evidence is showing a decline in print sales my experience is that variety of print is growing so Quark is still an important part of the designers tool box.

This is true. The variety is increasing, but I wonder for how long. I wonder how many small publications are made by huge companies. For instance, a magazine may be put out for the Olympics for just one year, or maybe a some sort of pop star would get their own rag for a year or so. We may find that the same firm with the same copy or Quark is designing all these smaller magazines along with larger titles like "Newsweek" and "Outdoor Life.". I would be interested to know if small local companies with one rag, would use Quark as much as a large house. My thought is that small firms are more interested in InDesign because it's bundled with CS. Large houses go with Quark because it's geared more towards corporate use.

Your "variety" point is valid for the next couple of years. However, I believe that the lucrative "single copy" sales are waning and along with that, advertising dollars. These variety magazines come and go. As generation y and z come on board they will turn more towards the internet for media.

This will be a slow slow change and if I was to be honest, Quark 7 will be valid for at least 5 more years, no matter how bitter I am towards it.

Cheers!

No hard feelings.:)

e-coli
May 14, 2006, 12:07 PM
Darn. I was hoping they had gone out of business. Oh well. :rolleyes:

beatle888
May 14, 2006, 12:29 PM
I have no idea about the new version of the program or it's abilities, but I'm not stupid enough to trash the new version when I haven't even seen it yet.



its easy when you know quarks reputation and people who use it enough, do.
i dont really care if they have new features. new features from quark are rare, so do i really want to buy in on quark 7 when history shows they lag with application enhancements? they havent even added key commands for their tool pallet...you get one key command that lets you CYCLE through all the tools...to time consuming. since before the new millennium they have made us work this way. thats not a company thats trying to improve things. quark features...im not counting on them working, not with their history. i just dont want to have to depend on them. thats all, i dont even care if their features do work.

and if the majority of a software companies clients are complaining then that might tell you something about the company. just like MS in that sense.

beatle888
May 14, 2006, 12:39 PM
Their designer send in a great looking design but as soon as we put it through our Celebra rip it looked at it and scratched its head and gave up. So we start going through it and with 2 of us knowing Illustrator well enough, to do about anything we could ever need in it and be asleep, we started digging around in the file and found no problems. We export it to an EPS and send it through Illustrator and everything works great. We export a PDF from Indesign and the rip still does the same. But we make an eps of it and distill it using Adobe Distiller everything is fine.


we never use the actual file the designer gives us. actually everything is rebuilt from scratch. this is what the production department does. the designer and art director work on the look, they hand it off to the production department and we measure every attribute and redo every file thats associated with it. we dont depend on our creative staff to produce the files.


not one vendor has sent us back mechanicals from indesign and we never had any problems that we didnt fix before sending them out. actually all our vendors prefer indesign. the only reason we use quark sometimes is because we have some clients that like to fiddle with their files...now thats a nightmare.

anyway one mans pleasure is another mans pain. i choose indesign, i hope the people that choose quark will get some long over key commands for the tools in 7. shutter....good luck.

macnews
May 14, 2006, 01:29 PM
... yet I bet a majority of those complainers will be among the first in line to buy Quark 7 after their eyes pop out of their heads when they see all the "wow!" features it has.

I have no idea about the new version of the program or it's abilities, but I'm not stupid enough to trash the new version when I haven't even seen it yet.

I have seen Quark 7 demoed by Quark reps at a show in November and recently in March. Both times it was crashing right and left. The only positive part is it crashed less in March than it did in November. Each time the rep kept saying "it is still in beta" blah blah blah "these will be fixed by the time it ships."

As to "wow" features - I just don't see that many that are not already in ID. Probably the one with the most "wow" factor is the multiple documents feature. I spent a lot of time looking at this and it just didn't seem that easy to use - cool in concept just not sure if it will be truely complete when it ships.

And for the person that posted their students are asking for more Quark teaching - do you teach much Quark at all? I have a ton of students who are asking for more Indesign as we teach Quark rather throughly. To be fair, the students do not want LESS Quark, rather to be schooled in both programs. This is what I hear from several other collegues at universities so I don't think it I am isolated.

As to one program being better than the other, I hope Quark stays in the game - it is the only thing to keep the pressure on both companies to keep improving the programs.

zelmo
May 14, 2006, 03:02 PM
If you work in pre-press, surely you'll take what your clients send you. How can you 'switch' when most people are sending out PDFs these days anyway?

All of our printers would thank you and kiss your behind for sending them a MS Publisher file if it meant getting the job.

Speaking as a printer, you are correct. We'd be puckering up not only for getting the work, but also for the oodles of tech charges we could foist upon you for using Publisher.:p

Our operators hated ID until CS1 came out. Now, it is their application of choice. We have been beta testing Q7 for a few months, and it should be the best release since 3.32.

G.Kirby
May 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
And for the person that posted their students are asking for more Quark teaching - do you teach much Quark at all? I have a ton of students who are asking for more Indesign as we teach Quark rather throughly. To be fair, the students do not want LESS Quark, rather to be schooled in both programs. This is what I hear from several other collegues at universities so I don't think it I am isolated.

This topic was raised at a recent course meeting. We will be incorporating workshops in InDesign but it will not to taught as part of the core modules at the moment. As lecturers it is getting to the point where we are no longer teaching design but teaching how to use software. As you will know/guess the two are very different things.

Our course is constantly evolving, we incorporate print, web, interactive media, video, PDF and paper technologies. Every year we devote more time to software tuition and less to design. We have to keep a balance and keep industry demands in mind so next academic year we will add tuition in InDesign but not at the expense of dropping Quark.

WHAT IF? If the whole design industry were to turn its back on Quark in the next year we would drop it. The same would be for Photoshop if industry totally went with some other application. The fact is this isn’t going to happen unless either Quark or Adobe pull out of the DTP market. :)

cherfizzle
May 14, 2006, 05:17 PM
http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/seven/beta.html

QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1

Important pre-installation instructions for the QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary beta 1 »
What is the QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta program?

The public beta program is your opportunity to engage with a community of other beta users, report issues, request feature enhancements in future releases, and take a hands-on look at the new features before QuarkXPress® 7 for Mac Intel-based machines is released.

Sign up for the public beta program »
Public beta program information

* The public beta program has ended for Windows users.
* QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1 software is a pre-release version.
* QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1 can be installed on a Power Mac G4 (or later) or an Intel-based Mac computer
* QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1 software will be functional for 60 days from the day it’s installed.
* Not all features in the QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1 are implemented. Users may experience unexpected results when using certain features.
* QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1 is not intended for use in a production environment.
* Technical support is not available for QuarkXPress 7 Universal Binary public beta 1 software.

macnews
May 14, 2006, 06:40 PM
As lecturers it is getting to the point where we are no longer teaching design but teaching how to use software. As you will know/guess the two are very different things.

Our course is constantly evolving, we incorporate print, web, interactive media, video, PDF and paper technologies. Every year we devote more time to software tuition and less to design. We have to keep a balance and keep industry demands in mind so next academic year we will add tuition in InDesign but not at the expense of dropping Quark.

I can't agree with you more re: teaching software vs teaching design. It is a big problem I am seeing more and more. So much time devoted to going in depth with the programs stealing time away from design. Hope all goes well with your program.

Highland
May 15, 2006, 01:41 AM
I can't agree with you more re: teaching software vs teaching design. It is a big problem I am seeing more and more. So much time devoted to going in depth with the programs stealing time away from design. Hope all goes well with your program.
And on that note... it really doesn't take that long to learn a new app if you're familiar with the concepts. I think InDesign took me a few weeks before I had most of it covered and was back to near full speed.

I don't really mind which app is better, as long as there's healthy competition and I'm in a situation where I can use the one I prefer!

G.Kirby
May 15, 2006, 02:16 AM
And on that note... it really doesn't take that long to learn a new app if you're familiar with the concepts. I think InDesign took me a few weeks before I had most of it covered and was back to near full speed.

I don't really mind which app is better, as long as there's healthy competition and I'm in a situation where I can use the one I prefer!


I agree with you for the most part but when we get students joining the course only a hand full will have used a DTP application, most will have only used Photoshop and have no guidance in image basics, some students will never have seen a Mac let alone know how to use one. :confused: So as you can inagine the learning curve is quite a steep one. :)

Highland
May 15, 2006, 02:23 AM
Oh yeah. I completely understand that! Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that you could just teach anyone anything and expect them to walk into a job where they'd be using something else. I just meant that they're not worlds apart, so once you're very at home in one, you should find the other pretty easy to learn. The keyboard shortcuts do trip us all up for a few weeks though!

central183
May 15, 2006, 07:08 AM
And on that note... it really doesn't take that long to learn a new app if you're familiar with the concepts. I think InDesign took me a few weeks before I had most of it covered and was back to near full speed.

I've heard this problem repeatedly. I can give you my spin on it. In my experience, I never got the chance to go to design school. I was very technically savvy, which got me a gig setting up a print designers office about 6 years ago. He saw that I was intuitive and understood "complicated" things like layers in Photoshop or perhaps concatenating paths in Illustrator. However, I did not have good design sense. This working relationship has worked quite well. He has 30+ years of experience and knows how a design should look. However, he is dangerous on the Mac. He can't even figure out how to add a "no break" character to InDesign. Often times, bleeds are missing. Panatones colors are set used for 4 color jobs. I am the one who translates the design to the software.

You have your right brainers and left brainers. Finding one a student who can use both sides well is rare. We've had freelancers come to the shop with design skills and lofty ideas, how ever we wind up spending months teaching them how to mask, run filters, and name layers in Photoshop. Often times, simple skills like naming layers in Photoshop don't exist. InDesign files are a mess with dozens of phantom boxes and strokes. Files are placed haphazardly all over the server with what ever name the designer was thinking of.

I believe that we should teach more software skills along with a class of "naming files" and server organization. People who shoot out of design school are complete slobs. If they aren't neat and organized with file names and photoshop layers, it will cost your shop money cleaning up after them.

Many shops have the chain of command where the senior designer tells the junior designer what to do. The junior designer tells the production artist what to do and so on. The kid that comes in at ground level should be neat, clean and efficient with software. It's likely the designers above him/her already know what the design should look like. After years of direction, the entry designer will gain momentum and confidence working under experienced designers and move up the chain. He/She will find that their left brain will begin to work with the right allowing them to be creative and technically savvy at the same time.

This is again why I feel strongly about the CS suite. Learning software is very tough if you want to keep up with cutting edge design. Learning one Adobe product can be much easier once you've worked with another. Having to learn Quark, after working with Adobe Aps is like learning a second language. It may not take some people long to learn DTP's, but Photoshop and Illustrator can take years to perfect. It's not uncommon for my Photoshop files to have 100 layers after a couple of hours of instruction from the designer. He is finicky, and often wants to go back to a step from 1/2 hour ago. I have to be careful to build layers in such a way that I can find them quickly and bring them back up to edit. Some of our Illustrator work involves 5,000 sq. ft. mansions. The file is enormous, and I must keep it organized and easy to edit. If I'm not quick enough, the shop loses money. We've had "designers" come in to work on our files, and almost every time, a mess is made and the job takes twice as long due to poor software skills.

dazzer21
May 15, 2006, 07:23 AM
In my experience, Quark 5 was crap so we stuck with 4.1 which a) just about covers our needs and b) works flawlessly so we have so far felt no real need to upgrade - This is on a fast G4 running 9.2. All our photoshop work gets done on a G5 so our system works pretty well. The only thing that really BUGS me is that for large format work, I have to work to ridiculous scales of full size - sometimes 1:20 or 1:50 scale because the page size only goes up to 1219.2mm. Now I looked at the v7 beta to see if this had been changed and I was flabberghasted to see that this limitation was still there! I binned it immediately in disgust. I posted my complaint on their website but I bet it fell on deaf ears - can anyone enlighten me?

blilly
May 15, 2006, 08:24 AM
I am amazed that anyone still uses this app by choice. ID is not perfect, but Quark is unbearable. v7 will do nothing radical enough to change that. Kill it!

Highland
May 15, 2006, 08:26 AM
Yeah, I forgot about that! InDesign is better in that respect. If nothing else, that seems like a relatively simple thing to solve. Also, has anyone else noticed that Xpress's zoom in/out behavior goes nutso with larger documents.

Hmmm... maybe I love InDesign more than I'm letting on!

Blue Velvet
May 15, 2006, 08:38 AM
can anyone enlighten me?

Software originally designed for publications hasn't taken the needs of those who work with display material to account. What's the point in working 1:1 sizes when you can only generate 720pt text? ;)

It doesn't bother me so much; working at 10 or 25% occasionally.


I am amazed that anyone still uses this app by choice.

It's a relatively minor thing for a freelance or small setup to transition. It's another thing when on larger scales. The only thing that matters is that a) that work is of sufficient aesthetic and technical quality to meet expectations and b) it meets all deadlines and budgets.

Everything that doesn't address those two priorities in a busy setup is change for change's sake and is something that Quark is counting on. At this stage, they're scrambling to stem the flow of customers to InDesign so this is evolution, not revolution.

I expect to see more free features come as a 7.5 release and 8 to come very soon relative to Quark's past release history.

Spagolli94
May 15, 2006, 09:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Velvet
InDesign — creatively-inspiring but a bit cumbersome and palette-heavy.
Quark — clunky but extremely fast in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

I only agree to this to a point. Both apps are cumbersome if you don't know what you're doing in. Most people I know (myself included) that know both apps well are far more efficient in InDesign. To me, good keyboard shortcuts equal speed and InDesign KILLS Quark when it comes to keyboard shortcuts. I find using an effective keyboard shortcut set helps me stay out of the palettes you complain about. I really don't mind the palettes though. If you think about it, most of the palettes in InDesign are dialouge boxes in Quark. The advantage to a palette is that it doesn't hijack your document like a dialouge box does.

Take the links palette for example. In InDesign, you can click on an image, see it's info, update it, whatever else you need to do, then click on another image and so on. However, in Quark, if you have your links dialouge box up, you can't do anything in the document until you hit "okay" or "cancel."

I'll take the palettes anyday over tons of dialouge boxes. Especially if you have dual monitors.

ewoh24
May 15, 2006, 10:01 AM
As an IT guy who has 40+ Quark users to support, I hope Quark (the company) go bankrupt and fold. 2-3 of my tech support calls a day are because Quark started acting flaky on somebody. It is by far the most troublesome app we have at my company and probably the most troublesome app I've ever had to support anywhere. I pray to Jebus we don't upgrade. I can't imagine what the Product ID for Version 7 will be. Probably an encrypted 4000 year old Incan astrological sequence that you have to type in while chanting a passage from the Bible on one foot...Actually that will probably be easier than the 80 character one they have now!

Atlasland
May 15, 2006, 11:04 AM
I always liked Quark v6. I find some of this criticism a little harsh.

Riot_Mac
May 15, 2006, 11:18 AM
As an IT guy who has 40+ Quark users to support, I hope Quark (the company) go bankrupt and fold. 2-3 of my tech support calls a day are because Quark started acting flaky on somebody. It is by far the most troublesome app we have at my company and probably the most troublesome app I've ever had to support anywhere. I pray to Jebus we don't upgrade. I can't imagine what the Product ID for Version 7 will be. Probably an encrypted 4000 year old Incan astrological sequence that you have to type in while chanting a passage from the Bible on one foot...Actually that will probably be easier than the 80 character one they have now!

Haha I was in the same boat until I insisted we switch to InDesign. It was tough at first but now all my users LOVE IT! Quarks activation code was the works part... the damn thing was 100 freaking characters. I actually just used a hacked version for 4.1 because of the damn floppy disks. Down with Quark!

morespce54
May 15, 2006, 01:58 PM
new features from quark are rare, so do i really want to buy in on quark 7 when history shows they lag with application enhancements?

But do not forget that they are other reasons for which Quark stays on version 3.32 for years... The industry didn't need anything else! ;-)

When used properly, Quark was much faster and precise than anything else (in a pre-os-x era)... :rolleyes:

It funny because it seems that the reason that made it a great software (no need to update features for a long time - 3.32 / 4) soon became the reason for dumping it... :D

DStaal
May 15, 2006, 02:18 PM
wow, you design guys (and girls) are almost as bad as us engineers and programmers when it comes to your tools.

And for the same reasons: Those are all fields where technical precision counts -- tremendously -- but the actual work is creative.

So, a good tool is one that lets you focus on the creative aspects of the job and takes care of the technical. However, there are two problems: First, there is no dividing line between 'technical' and 'creative', and secondly no two people's minds work quite the same way.

Therefore the product requirement reads like this: Do whatever the user wants done automatically automatically, and let them do whatever they want manually. Choose the defaults the user uses 90% of the time for automatic processes, but make them easy to change when needed. (But protect them from being changed acidentally.)

In other words: Read my mind, and do what I'm thinking. No one's managed it yet, but if someone is used to a program that generally works the way they want, they will like it. And they will dislike anything they aren't used to, or works even slightly differently.

beatle888
May 15, 2006, 02:36 PM
But do not forget that they are other reasons for which Quark stays on version 3.32 for years... The industry didn't need anything else! ;-)

When used properly, Quark was much faster and precise than anything else (in a pre-os-x era)... :rolleyes:

It funny because it seems that the reason that made it a great software (no need to update features for a long time - 3.32 / 4) soon became the reason for dumping it... :D



no no no :)

come on. dont tell me that it didnt need anything else. we dont NEED a color pallet, we could just use the color dialog window but we appreciate having the color pallet. so....why not key commmands for the tool pallet? we dont NEED them but we sure would appreciate them.

the only reason people have used quark so long is because they didnt really have any competition after page maker. now that indesigned is positioned to dominate quark...well things are getting interesting and people are choosing which side of the line they need to be on. i have to know both as thoroughly as possible which is tough because one studio might use quark so im on quark for four months, then another studio uses indesign so im on indesign for five months...its hard going back and forth like that...but i like it, it keeps me on my toes.

beatle888
May 15, 2006, 02:46 PM
I've heard this problem repeatedly. I can give you my spin on it. In my experience, I never got the chance to go to design school. I was very technically savvy, which got me a gig setting up a print designers office about 6 years ago. He saw that I was intuitive and understood "complicated" things like layers in Photoshop or perhaps concatenating paths in Illustrator. However, I did not have good design sense. This working relationship has worked quite well. He has 30+ years of experience and knows how a design should look. However, he is dangerous on the Mac. He can't even figure out how to add a "no break" character to InDesign. Often times, bleeds are missing. Panatones colors are set used for 4 color jobs. I am the one who translates the design to the software.

You have your right brainers and left brainers. Finding one a student who can use both sides well is rare. We've had freelancers come to the shop with design skills and lofty ideas, how ever we wind up spending months teaching them how to mask, run filters, and name layers in Photoshop. Often times, simple skills like naming layers in Photoshop don't exist. InDesign files are a mess with dozens of phantom boxes and strokes. Files are placed haphazardly all over the server with what ever name the designer was thinking of.

I believe that we should teach more software skills along with a class of "naming files" and server organization. People who shoot out of design school are complete slobs. If they aren't neat and organized with file names and photoshop layers, it will cost your shop money cleaning up after them.

Many shops have the chain of command where the senior designer tells the junior designer what to do. The junior designer tells the production artist what to do and so on. The kid that comes in at ground level should be neat, clean and efficient with software. It's likely the designers above him/her already know what the design should look like. After years of direction, the entry designer will gain momentum and confidence working under experienced designers and move up the chain. He/She will find that their left brain will begin to work with the right allowing them to be creative and technically savvy at the same time.

This is again why I feel strongly about the CS suite. Learning software is very tough if you want to keep up with cutting edge design. Learning one Adobe product can be much easier once you've worked with another. Having to learn Quark, after working with Adobe Aps is like learning a second language. It may not take some people long to learn DTP's, but Photoshop and Illustrator can take years to perfect. It's not uncommon for my Photoshop files to have 100 layers after a couple of hours of instruction from the designer. He is finicky, and often wants to go back to a step from 1/2 hour ago. I have to be careful to build layers in such a way that I can find them quickly and bring them back up to edit. Some of our Illustrator work involves 5,000 sq. ft. mansions. The file is enormous, and I must keep it organized and easy to edit. If I'm not quick enough, the shop loses money. We've had "designers" come in to work on our files, and almost every time, a mess is made and the job takes twice as long due to poor software skills.


well said. as a freelancer i work at many different studios and come across a lot of work done by other freelancers, designers and art directors. you wouldnt believe how lazy some of the work is. people need to start thinking about production as a craft. do it well, do it right, make it bullet proof. but i dont think this is what designers should be focused on. only the production artist. we typically rebuild what the designers/art directors send our way.

Chupa Chupa
May 15, 2006, 02:50 PM
Hard to believe a final version is near. Quark was trying to sell me v6 when it was a year out. So far not a peep from them on pre-ordering 7. The fact they are going to be UB way, way, way before Adobe might just head off any inroads Adobe has been making with Indesign.

evilernie
May 16, 2006, 11:50 AM
I've been a hardcore Quark user since 1990, and at one time, I loved it. However, they screwed me so many times over the years, and I just had to bend over and take it. Cryptic registration keys. Sure! I can't be trusted anyway. Quark 5, a minor upgrade for what, $500, $600, $700! Sure why not! It's got to be worth it, right? No OSX support for what, 3 years? Thank you sir may I have another! No multiple undos, years after everyone else has figured out that puzzle! Thanks Quark, for keeping me on my toes!

I FINALLY convinced my company to buy me InDesign about a year ago, and I am not going back now. It is so vastly superior to Quark, it's not even funny.

dshootist
May 16, 2006, 12:34 PM
Apple seems to have a special way of keeping things interesting. The transition to OS X and Quark's resulting snub of the new platform cost them a great deal of mindshare and I would venture to guess marketshare. Now they will be the first to support the Intel transition, with Adobe dragging way behind on all their products except LightRoom. Just when it seems a war has been won, a new battle breaks out with different leaders. And they say that the computer industry has settled and is now boring...

don't forget that with new "battlefields" come new casualties. Q7 may be the first to be a UB desktop pub app, but that doesn't always guarantee a win in the long run (anyone remember Newton? Palm1 doesn't). Adobe does have great track record with keeping the graphics/creative industry loaded with (usually) good software. i've been using Quark since the early-to-mid 90's for pre-press and production and have never liked it. i've hooked up our production department with ID CS and never looked in the rear view mirror. i guess we'll all see what happens when the first patch has to be distributed...;)