PDA

View Full Version : QuarkXPress 6 available to order


jxyama
Jun 10, 2003, 12:17 PM
Online store is being updated...!!

I'm going to bet it's revamped 15" Al PB. (Along with speed bumped 12/17".)

jxyama
Jun 10, 2003, 12:38 PM
It's back up... I don't see anything different... just FCP4?

[edit] I see it now. QuarkXpress... [\edit]

funkywhat2
Jun 10, 2003, 12:46 PM
QuarkXPress 6 for OS X is now available for ordering.

http://www.quark.com/

crazzyeddie
Jun 10, 2003, 12:51 PM
Quark...

http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/248/2041/335/store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/cp_top_promo_quark.gif

szark
Jun 10, 2003, 12:51 PM
also from apple:

QuarkXPress 6.0 (http://www.apple.com/macosx/applications/quarkxpress/)

applemacdude
Jun 10, 2003, 12:55 PM
Not very exiting.....but finally here:rolleyes:

MacsRgr8
Jun 10, 2003, 12:59 PM
Yep

Seems Apple has been waiting....

www.apple.com

Abstract
Jun 10, 2003, 01:05 PM
Geez, you got me extremely excited!!! *sigh*

I thought you were going to tell us something big.......something HUGE..........something bigger than Quark. :(

Anyway, great news if you think Quark is exciting.

macphisto
Jun 10, 2003, 01:11 PM
Check out Apple's (http://www.apple.com) home page. But my question is why? If you have ever used InDesign 2.0, why on earth would you go back to quark? And if you are using quark, why are you not using InDesign? InDesign is a better program by far.

What does everyone else think?

gopher
Jun 10, 2003, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Abstract
Geez, you got me extremely excited!!! *sigh*

I thought you were going to tell us something big.......something HUGE..........something bigger than Quark. :(

Anyway, great news if you think Quark is exciting.

Quark will finally let the dam loose on Mac OS X migration.

1. Quark is only going to work with Mac OS X.
2. Quark users have not been happy with Apple's Mac OS X only booting decision since September
3. Quark users have switched to InDesign if they could afford to.
4. Quark has the niche of the design market only recently is Adobe
making inroads into.

Yes Quark is big, really big. About as big as its namesake is small
in the atom!

pilotgi
Jun 10, 2003, 01:14 PM
It's up at Apple's site. Here (http://www.apple.com/)

job
Jun 10, 2003, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by gopher
2. Quark users have not been happy with Apple's Mac OS X only booting decision since September

Now Apple no longer has any reason to make any more OS 9 capable machines. :D

Laurent
Jun 10, 2003, 01:23 PM
It's been 2 years... I can't say that I am a proud user of Adobe InDesign since the applications isn't as sharp as Quark. I can't wait to try this new version! (Which might offer new features...?)

evoluzione
Jun 10, 2003, 01:36 PM
well **** me, I never thought I'd see the day. only two years to wait before they release a Panther version now....

could be perfect timing for me though.....oh everything is working out sooooo to plan :D


edit: crikey, how american did that sound? :rolleyes:

edit: but wait! no ********** manual????? of all the programs that should come with a manual it should be this one.....not because it's necessarily difficult, but because that's the whole idea of the program! grrrr. also feels like you get much better value for your money i reckon

Macmaniac
Jun 10, 2003, 01:43 PM
I'm glad that its finally coming out, this should hopefully spur some powermac sales. Of course everyone on this site is waiting for the 970!!

jethroted
Jun 10, 2003, 01:44 PM
Horay!!!!! I've been waiting so long for this. It's the one thing I need to be right on track, as far as my software goes. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

areyouwishing
Jun 10, 2003, 01:46 PM
love quark, hate quark...this is still a good thing.

This release means Adobe will have to keep inovating indesign.

evoluzione
Jun 10, 2003, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by job
Now Apple no longer has any reason to make any more OS 9 capable machines. :D

er, no i don't think so (damn, that reminded me of Mega-Lo-Mania!)

there's so many scanners and printers out there (among other things) that refuse to work in OS X (unfortunately) that I will probably be buying a new dual 1.25ghz as it's still boots OS 9. I called Heidelberg asking about scanner software and they said they were going to windows rather than writing an OS X complaint piece of software, bastards.

bignumbers
Jun 10, 2003, 01:59 PM
System Requirements:
Mac OS X v10.2
CD-ROM drive for installation
Minimum: 128MB RAM, Recommended: 1024MB RAM
230MB available hard disk space for QuarkXPress installation

OUCH! Recommendation of a GIG of RAM! (I am spec'ing all new machines with at least a gig, but plenty of older ones, like the Pismo I'm on now, can't take that much.)

It's about time though...

AppleMatt
Jun 10, 2003, 01:59 PM
Finally! This ties up a nice little hole in OS X migration.

AppleMatt

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 01:59 PM
and quark FINALLY gets multiple undos and a wonderful new spyware copy protection.

I like how they continually treat users like criminals... i'll never forget the hours of hell trying to install Xpress 4 Passport on a g4 350 with no ADB dongle. And how i have to wait 4 weeks for them to send a keyspan...

by that time, i got the quark cracker from carracho and was up and running.

InDesign is FAR superior, and i've noticed no difference in my printed files. And my designs haven't suffered... it IS the talent, after all.

I just prefer ID. And if my printer wants my business, he will too. And he has. :)

GregGomer
Jun 10, 2003, 02:00 PM
So, it's up on Apples site, but not Quarks. The Quark site still shows the preview stuff, but no announcement about a soon to be ship date. Kind of funny that they are so laxed about things that they haven't announced anything yet. But rather it's Apple and all the Apple news sites bringing the announcement to us.

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 02:04 PM
has anyone seen screenshots? the measurements palette is FRIGGIN HUGE

Uck. And teh rest of the palettes seem to have put on some weight too. Looks like Ol' Quark is sagging, showing some age, and eating too many donuts. ;)

poor port IMHO

Freg3000
Jun 10, 2003, 02:07 PM
$899 is a lot of money. Wow. What is the upgrade price-is it anymore bearable?

drastik
Jun 10, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by bignumbers
OUCH! Recommendation of a GIG of RAM! (I am spec'ing all new machines with at least a gig, but plenty of older ones, like the Pismo I'm on now, can't take that much.)

It's about time though...


Actually, the pismo can take a gig of RAM, the ram that they shipped with is removable, not soddered on, go to xlr8yourmac.com and do a search, they have instructions in there. The machine will even register it as a gig, just throw in two 512 chips.


OMG Quark has come to be. This is the last piece of the puzzle for a lot od designers. To a big portion of Mac Users, Quark is the holy grail. I've met very few layout and design pros that really think InDesign is better, most I know have been using it as a stopgap.

e-coli
Jun 10, 2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by Freg3000
$899 is a lot of money. Wow. What is the upgrade price-is it anymore bearable?

The upgrade to QuarkXPress 6 ranges from $199 to $499 (U.S. dollars) depending the version you have.

springscansing
Jun 10, 2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by job
Now Apple no longer has any reason to make any more OS 9 capable machines. :D

Unless you do audio work.

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 02:24 PM
Our IT guy told us that once QX 6.o came out they would start migrating all the macs in my agency to OS X! And that once the 970 towers came out we'd be getting those too! Bout fricking time! Gonna be a fun summer.

I wonder how many other medium to large agencies have been waiting to migrate. Apple could potentially sell a ****load of 970s this summer.

mohaukachi
Jun 10, 2003, 02:26 PM
took them damn well long enough! i wonder if it will work on panther when it comes out?

bignumbers
Jun 10, 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by drastik
Actually, the pismo can take a gig of RAM, the ram that they shipped with is removable, not soddered on, go to xlr8yourmac.com and do a search, they have instructions in there. The machine will even register it as a gig, just throw in two 512 chips.

Last I checked, they drew too much power. If you swap batteries, the machine powers down instead of giving you time for the swap. Maybe that's better now though.

alset
Jun 10, 2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by job
Now Apple no longer has any reason to make any more OS 9 capable machines. :D

Many in the pro audio market are still unable to embrace X.

Dan

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by evoluzione
edit: but wait! no ********** manual????? of all the programs that should come with a manual it should be this one.....not because it's necessarily difficult, but because that's the whole idea of the program! grrrr.

They were going to include a manual, but they couldn't get it to print correctly... :p

RHutch
Jun 10, 2003, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by macphisto
Check out Apple's (http://www.apple.com) home page. But my question is why? If you have ever used InDesign 2.0, why on earth would you go back to quark? And if you are using quark, why are you not using InDesign? InDesign is a better program by far.

What does everyone else think?

Doesn't it make a difference if your vendors accept InDesign files?

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
has anyone seen screenshots? the measurements palette is FRIGGIN HUGE

Uck. And teh rest of the palettes seem to have put on some weight too. Looks like Ol' Quark is sagging, showing some age, and eating too many donuts. ;)

poor port IMHO

Can't blame that one on Quark. They just followed Apple's Aqua guidelines. Aqua is a chunky butterbean that eats up screen, designed for the 2400x1800 resolutions of tomorrow!

job
Jun 10, 2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by alset
Many in the pro audio market are still unable to embrace X.

Ah, touche.

are most pro audio apps still OS9 only?

iJed
Jun 10, 2003, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by evoluzione
er, no i don't think so (damn, that reminded me of Mega-Lo-Mania!)

there's so many scanners and printers out there (among other things) that refuse to work in OS X (unfortunately)

Not only scanners and printers but some DV cameras that worked with iMovie in OS 9.x still don't work in OS X. I've got a Samsung VP-D55, which worked perfectly in OS 9, and it doesn't work at all in OS X. I've entered this in the iMovie and OS X feedback many times but they have not taken any notice.

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by RHutch
Doesn't it make a difference if your vendors accept InDesign files?

if you printer is worth his salt, they'll get ID to keep your business. Several of mine did. :)

they also got pcs and punish tehir production guys...by making them use publisher. hehe

they're money hungry. they'll do what it takes. and if their adobe certified they get it for free. :)

mactastic
Jun 10, 2003, 02:48 PM
Well, for as long as it has taken to get this out, I wonder how well it works. Quarks UI was never all the great to start with IMHO. One less reason for OS9, I was thinking that the pro audio people were the only ones left too. Them and the education market without the money to do all the software upgrading that os x would require.

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by macphisto
Check out Apple's (http://www.apple.com) home page. But my question is why? If you have ever used InDesign 2.0, why on earth would you go back to quark? And if you are using quark, why are you not using InDesign? InDesign is a better program by far.

What does everyone else think?

InDesign's coming along nicely, but still quirky and slow, with some poorly implemented features (Gradients!). ID3 will be great I'm sure, because Adobe addresses issues and makes great software. Maybe now that Quark's out of the bag, we'll see a preview to ID3.

My place of employment has too many legacy Quark files that we need access to to consider the move now and ID2's handling of Quark files has left me unimpressed.

I have used ID2 for freelance work and some one off trade-show displays and have been happy with all the things that it can do that Quark can't touch (like utilizing Photoshop file transparency). If they implement layer effects the same way that Pshop does and work their gradients like Illustrator, it will be sweet indeed....

Laurent
Jun 10, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by macphisto
Check out Apple's (http://www.apple.com) home page. But my question is why? If you have ever used InDesign 2.0, why on earth would you go back to quark? And if you are using quark, why are you not using InDesign? InDesign is a better program by far.

What does everyone else think? I found Quark to be sharper than InDesign, so I am interested in QuarkXpress 6...

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Laurent
I found Quark to be sharper than InDesign, so I am interested in QuarkXpress 6...

be sure to buy a 20" Cinema for all those palettes. Sheesh. So many HUGE palettes. ouch.

MDiddy
Jun 10, 2003, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by Laurent
It's been 2 years... I can't say that I am a proud user of Adobe InDesign since the applications isn't as sharp as Quark. I can't wait to try this new version! (Which might offer new features...?)

I am a Graphic Design student, so I may be way off-but I think InDesign is FAR more refined than Quark 5, and has all of the commonalities of a modern design application. And its resembalance to Illustrator & Photoshop have helped me become far more comfortable with it. I know I have to know Quark, but I choose to use InDesign.

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
be sure to buy a 20" Cinema for all those palettes. Sheesh. So many HUGE palettes. ouch.

And Adobe's products aren't the most real-estate hogging one's on the market? I find them practically unworkable when I don't have a second monitor!

Quarks original interface, especially the measurements palette, was designed not to hog screen space. Adobe could learn something from Quark here...:rolleyes:

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
And Adobe's products aren't the most real-estate hogging one's on the market? I find them practically unworkable when I don't have a second monitor!

Quarks original interface, especially the measurements palette, was designed not to hog screen space. Adobe could learn something from Quark here...:rolleyes:

but it looks like quark is ripping off adobe in palette size. I find ID2 and AI10 (photoshop is in a league all its own) workable on my 17" LCD.

I had a beta of Xpress 6 and it was crowded. very crowded

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 03:06 PM
You learn to use your F-keys and then you only have open the pallets that you need. I haven't used ID and doesn't look like I'll ever have to.

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by chubakka
You learn to use your F-keys and then you only have open the pallets that you need. I haven't used ID and doesn't look like I'll ever have to.

Heh. I barely and rarely used a mouse with Quark.

But what about the denizens of lazy art directors who won't learn keyboard shortcuts? I have a feeling their going to be let down by the new version of QXP and probably bummed out by their migration to OSX.

Plus, I didn't need to learn fkey shortcuts for ID. I already knew them from my extensive knowledge of AI. :)

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
but it looks like quark is ripping off adobe in palette size. I find ID2 and AI10 (photoshop is in a league all its own) workable on my 17" LCD.

I had a beta of Xpress 6 and it was crowded. very crowded

That screenshot is deceiving. You can squash Quark's palettes to strips that are half as wide as they show. That's about half as wide as Adobe's palettes at their narrowest...

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
That screenshot is deceiving. You can squash Quark's palettes to strips that are half as wide as they show. That's about half as wide as Adobe's palettes at their narrowest...

Hmm. Didn't see that option in the beta. Is it marked on their website? Show me a link, baby

JBracy
Jun 10, 2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by job
Ah, touche.

are most pro audio apps still OS9 only?

No - Logic Audi, ProTools and Cubase are all OSX. It's just all of the hardware that people have invested in - it's the same as the problem with Heidleberg scanners - the manufacturers refuse to write OSX drivers.

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by JBracy
No - Logic Audi, ProTools and Cubase are all OSX. It's just all of the hardware that people have invested in - it's the same as the problem with Heidleberg scanners - the manufacturers refuse to write OSX drivers.

And Reason. And Traktor. And let's not forget Nuedo (right??) And loads of midi drivers.

I haven't used 9 in over a year. Design. Print. Photo. Music. Web. Multimedia. All on X :)

canadianmacguy
Jun 10, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
has anyone seen screenshots? the measurements palette is FRIGGIN HUGE

Uck. And teh rest of the palettes seem to have put on some weight too. Looks like Ol' Quark is sagging, showing some age, and eating too many donuts. ;)


I think that's just the Aqua UI guidelines being applied.. the palettes look really good to me, well designed.

Welcome to OS X. ;-)

tacojohn
Jun 10, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by job
Ah, touche.

are most pro audio apps still OS9 only?

Dude- I have teh same camera and same stupid problem- I wonder if they're ever going to fix the damn thing!

Crappy camera though- but hey- I want it to work in X!

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by canadianmacguy
I think that's just the Aqua UI guidelines being applied.. the palettes look really good to me, well designed.

Welcome to OS X. ;-)

I like how they picked now asthe time to follow apple interface guidelines. haha

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Hmm. Didn't see that option in the beta. Is it marked on their website? Show me a link, baby

Drag from the bottom right corner. Same as always. It's in the beta and every version of Quark ever made.

Quark on the left. ID2 on the right.

insidedanshead
Jun 10, 2003, 03:25 PM
Long live InDesign.

(Though, good news either way)

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Drag from the bottom right corner. Same as always. It's in the beta and every version of Quark ever made.

Quark on the left. ID2 on the right.

Well, if you're gonna do that with Quark, do it with ID2 as well.

jayscheuerle
Jun 10, 2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
Well, if you're gonna do that with Quark, do it with ID2 as well.

Duh! That's as narrow as they go, regardless if you have one, two or three tabs. The only tab that goes narrower is the "Pages" one (and I showed that narrow!) :cool:

I'm sure it's all just a matter of preference, but regardless of that Adobe has more than a little room for cleaning up their work area! - j

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:38 PM
note as well how many palettes you have available with ID. So many controls, available thru keyboard and thru the menus.

You have access to all your color options in one group, all your text in another, all your styles and essential production elements such as trap info and whatnot.

But the thing is, I prefer having stuff in the tabbed palette system. If i were to have all of the stuff opened in Quark and I have it in ID.... Yipes.

I like options. And ID gives it to me big time, and takes up less real estate than quark. It's also, and i never thought i'd be able to say this, a PROVEN piece of software relative to its platform. Quark is behind and they need to do something to get me to buy into their system.

i've used it extensively and am probably more efficient at it then 95% of the deisgners out there.

I'm also a CREATIVE, not a production guy, and ID lets me create without letting me lose sight of my production needs.

Until Quark gives me a reason to spend 900 bux on Xpress, i'll just go out and buy another Adobe Design Collection or MX studio and be all the happier. :D

inkswamp
Jun 10, 2003, 03:40 PM
Hey everyone! I just had the strangest dream. Okay, I know it sounds unlikely, but hear me out. I dreamed that I went to the Apple site and there on the front page....

Oh nevermind. It couldn't possibly have been real.

andyduncan
Jun 10, 2003, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Laurent
It's been 2 years... I can't say that I am a proud user of Adobe InDesign since the applications isn't as sharp as Quark. I can't wait to try this new version! (Which might offer new features...?)

Doesn't offer a whole lot in the way of new features. Read the Macworld Article (http://www.macworld.com/2003/06/features/quark6preview/).

I think it's a little naive to think that just because XPress 6 is out that everyone will upgrade. A lot of houses are still running 4.x.

Also, a large number of houses stuck with quark rather than move to ID because they are using some other custom software in conjunction with XPress that would need some level of work (from a tweak to a full port, depending on the software) to run on OS X, or even just version 5.

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by andyduncan
Doesn't offer a whole lot in the way of new features. Read the Macworld Article (http://www.macworld.com/2003/06/features/quark6preview/).

I think it's a little naive to think that just because XPress 6 is out that everyone will upgrade. A lot of houses are still running 4.x.

Also, a large number of houses stuck with quark rather than move to ID because they are using some other custom software in conjunction with XPress that would need some level of work (from a tweak to a full port, depending on the software) to run on OS X, or even just version 5.

plus, .0 releases from Quark are pretty much public betas. And they charge.... SO MUCH.

But aside... I remember 4.0 and the bugs. God. it took until 4.1 to clear everything up, and that was like, 2 years later!

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 03:57 PM
Which is as stable as quark xpress has ever been. Haven't tried QX 5.

I hope quark is quick with the bug patches.

j33pd0g
Jun 10, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by macphisto
Check out Apple's (http://www.apple.com) home page. But my question is why? If you have ever used InDesign 2.0, why on earth would you go back to quark? And if you are using quark, why are you not using InDesign? InDesign is a better program by far.

What does everyone else think?

I think I have no choice but to use what bonehead executives tell me I can use. If we get new macs maybe now the IT department will have no choice but to move to OS X. I cry everytime they take a brand new G4 and downgrade it to 8.1-8.5:( I hate using 8.1 at work. It sucks. Now maybe I have a shot at using OS X at work.:) What am I talking about - we'll never see new macs - they'll probably downgrade us to C64!!!!!

Jeff Harrell
Jun 10, 2003, 04:16 PM
It seems to me that the Aqua UI is not well suited to applications like Quark, InDesign, Illustrator, and Photoshop. I'd like to see an application like one of those reworked to use a UI more reminiscent of Final Cut Pro or Logic. No more floating palettes; give us paned full-screen interfaces that arrange tools and controls in logical ways.

Honestly, I think the floating palette is the worst thing that ever happened to the graphical user interface.

Well, with the possible exception of the floating toolbar. Ugh.

Arcady
Jun 10, 2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by mohaukachi
took them damn well long enough! i wonder if it will work on panther when it comes out?

Knowing Quark, it will probably not work on 10.3, but they'll fix that just as 10.4 comes out... and it won't work on that. ;)

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 04:24 PM
I've been using quark for 10 years. It works. Why switch to ID?
Because it works well with photoshop and illustrator?
I can't see it being THAT much better.
Maybe ignorance is bliss in this case.

But soon I'll be using QX 6.0! and OS X at work! woohoo.

DriverDan
Jun 10, 2003, 04:36 PM
Oh the delicious irony; today, our company (85 seat textbook publishing company) began training staff on our new page layout software, InDesign. I'm sitting there in the training lab, my head spinning with all of I.D.'s remarkable new features, its friendliness, thoughtfullness, stability, intuitiveness, and consistency with the other Adobe apps, and during a break I fire up Safari and find that Quark is finally being updated, about 2 years too late. And I realize how wonderful it is for Adobe to have so effectively broken Quark's strangle-hold on the industry. It's going to be fun to watch Quark play catch-up now, but I think Quark's delay, and Adobe's know-how, ensure that Quark will be relegated to relatively simple business tasks, as PageMaker was when Quark first appeared. More irony. I never thought I'd ever look at Apple's home page, (which now bears the Quark announcement) and think, "who cares?":rolleyes:

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 04:39 PM
Text books... sounds reeeeeel fun.

We'll be upgraded for $299 a pop and won't need training.

Moxiemike
Jun 10, 2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by chubakka
Text books... sounds reeeeeel fun.

We'll be upgraded for $299 a pop and won't need training.

i crossgrade to ID for 199 when it came out and needed no training. :D

blueBomber
Jun 10, 2003, 04:43 PM
to bad my print shop STILL refuses to move to osX. Our computer guy (bleech) has them convinced that our image setter won't play well with it. I guess I'll have to wait until Illustrator and Photoshop just won't work in 9 until they decide it's time.

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 04:46 PM
We just have way too many legacy files to switch to ID.

And in years that ID has been out we've never even seen
an ID file come to us from a client or another agency.

Quark is not going the way of Pagemaker.

areyouwishing
Jun 10, 2003, 04:58 PM
I think its really going to a 2 party system in the print world.

All printers will have both programs, but designers will have the choice of which to use. Personally I think Indesign is a little less intuitive than Quark, but it makes up for it in features. Quark doesn't have the features, but it makes up for it in its ease of use.

Jeff Harrell
Jun 10, 2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by chubakka
We just have way too many legacy files to switch to ID.

And in years that ID has been out we've never even seen
an ID file come to us from a client or another agency.

Quark is not going the way of Pagemaker. Those are, of course, the exact same things we said about PageMaker back in the day. Too many legacy files, too much demand in the market.

Boy, that sure changed in a hurry, didn't it?

Quark gave Adobe a two-year window of opportunity. Adobe has InDesign, a product that, as far as I know, can do everything Quark can do. As a result, we now have people out there--not a few of them, either--doing new work in InDesign instead of Quark. If, and this is a big if, the new work continues to be done in InDesign and customers keep Quark around, if at all, only to deal with legacy files, then in five years we'll be talking about how some other product is "not going the way of Quark."

chubakka
Jun 10, 2003, 05:29 PM
It's all a matter of preference. There will be Quark studios and there will be ID studios. And the printers will just have to deal with it. I think some just fail to see the importance of Quark now being native on OS X. This really was something many shops were waiting for to make the switch. It is a big deal.

j33pd0g
Jun 10, 2003, 05:42 PM
Apple is really trying to get the word out... I got a Quark 6 promotion emailed to me as well.

mangoman
Jun 10, 2003, 05:57 PM
Apple's site is pathetic... "Start The Presses." Puh-leeeeze! Open your socket flaps, kids: InDesign's been feeding print jobs to several printers here for quite a snag-free while.

Good riddance, Quark. And ya STILL look ugly, so there!

:p

fiardinkum
Jun 10, 2003, 06:14 PM
OK, sooooooooo..... QuarkXpress 6 is here (almost) (again). Woohoo I hear you say. But what's just around the corner? 64 bit Macs and Panther soon after. Just how long is it going to take Quark to make Xpress a 64 bit app? I think that by the time they get around to it books will be things of the past, who will want to publish?

johnmccollum
Jun 10, 2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by drastik
To a big portion of Mac Users, Quark is the holy grail. I've met very few layout and design pros that really think InDesign is better, most I know have been using it as a stopgap.

Quark Xpress, like Microsoft Windoze, has a huge, undiscerning user base that is content with being treated like crap and is apparently happy with saggy, overweight, outdated software.

I'm fluent in both Xpress and InDesign, so I speak with some first-hand knowledge.

At even the most basic level -- typesetting -- InDesign is lightyears ahead.

Add to that multiple undos, native support for Photoshop transparency functions, perfect integration with Acrobat, full OSX compatibility and all of the other things that InDesign has had for months, I can't begin to see why anyone would want to stick with Xpress.

Still, as with Windows, the masses will stick with Xpress, while a few of us lonely, enlightened souls will carry forth in the Way of the Macintosh, and use the product that is closest to the Insanely Great ideal.

Peace.

johnmccollum
Jun 10, 2003, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by mangoman
Apple's site is pathetic... "Start The Presses."

No doubt. I just checked it out: "Full resolution preview."

"Dang, Clem, these new awto-mo-beels come with FLOOR BOARDS!"

Whoop-de-freaking-do.

After switching to InDesign at the time of (the admitedly buggy, but still better-than-Quark) version 1.0, I've gotten so used to full-res previews that when I was forced to use Quark on a project, I felt like I had returned to the days of Pagemaker 2.0.

You, Mangoman sound like a smart dude surfin' the wave of the future. The rest of you Quark lame-o-s can eat my alpha channels.

Peace.

yzedf
Jun 10, 2003, 08:22 PM
Why would I buy that piece of trash???

InDesign anyone?

BillGates
Jun 10, 2003, 08:23 PM
There are always exceptions and I know its bad to generalize but... The pre-press industry is full of highly skilled Quark users. Many of them wont admit it but deep down it scars the hell out of them that if the company they work for switches to ID2 that they will no longer have as much value. They have spent years honing their Quark skills only to see that all go out the window. They fear a long learning curve.

I've found that designers that use Quark as a design tool are very willing to switch. However they rarely take the product through to completion. They pass the files off to the so called pre-press pros. The pre-press people are full of excuses as to why not to switch. Many times they refuse to even look at ID2.

Its more complicated than demanding that your pre-press house our print provider use ID2. What if your the pre-press house and your clients what the files back as Quark files?

Much of the work done in Quark is done using version 4.x. Now what are they going to do that Quark 6 only runs in OSX and Quark 4 and 5 only run in OS9? They will likely have as many compatibility issues between ID2 and Quark 4 as they do trying to do work in Quark 6 when the client wants Quark 4 files.

Believe me, the pre-press industry will live in the past as long as they possibly can!

j33pd0g
Jun 10, 2003, 08:30 PM
Minimum: 128MB RAM, Recommended: 1024MB RAM

The recommended -or- The only way it'll work?

johnmccollum
Jun 10, 2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by BillGates


Its more complicated than demanding that your pre-press house our print provider use ID2. What if your the pre-press house and your clients what the files back as Quark files?

Believe me, the pre-press industry will live in the past as long as they possibly can!

Q. How many service bureaus in your area need to accept InDesign files?

A. Just one.

Printing-wise, it's a buyer's market.

We've told printers that, if they want the job, they'll find a way to take our files. And we've given names of InDesign-friendly prepress houses to our them, and suggested that they can always send the files out to them for film.

Our clients couldn't care less what program we use. Most of them don't want to do complex page layout anyway. They're working with Publisher 90% of the time anyway. So it's all been cool.

Peace.

BillGates
Jun 10, 2003, 08:34 PM
Apple's first announcement today stated that Quark 6 would be available next week. It has since been pulled.

I was informed by Quark that Quark 6 will NOT be available next week. They don't know when it will ship. They are hoping that it will be ready in a couple weeks.

BillGates
Jun 10, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by johnmccollum
Q. How many service bureaus in your area need to accept InDesign files?



Isn't the service bureau dead? Who uses film anymore?

Often times the pre-press house doesn't choose the printer. The client may be a big corporation that has specific printers they require.

In a native file work flow you could have the client who designs the files, if not a designer may do the work. Then you may have a 3rd company handle the pre-press and a 4th do the printing. The client may want the completed files.

If you're at the top, you're right you dictate. And I say you should choose ID2. If you're not, you're at the mercy of both ends.

I can not see ID replacing Quark for a long time. It will however be running alongside Quark in most pre-press houses and printers.

BillGates
Jun 10, 2003, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by johnmccollum
when I was forced to use Quark on a project, I felt like I had returned to the days of Pagemaker 2.0.

Why were you forced to use Quark?
Can you still be forced to use Quark?

I'm hoping you never again give in and use Quark. Delete it from your computer now!

johnmccollum
Jun 10, 2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by BillGates
Isn't the service bureau dead? Who uses film anymore?

Often times the pre-press house doesn't choose the printer. The client may be a big corporation that has specific printers they require.

In a native file work flow you could have the client who designs the files, if not a designer may do the work. Then you may have a 3rd company handle the pre-press and a 4th do the printing. The client may want the completed files.

If you're at the top, you're right you dictate. And I say you should choose ID2. If you're not, you're at the mercy of both ends.

I can not see ID replacing Quark for a long time. It will however be running alongside Quark in most pre-press houses and printers.

Actually, in most metro areas there are a few prepress houses left. And there are plenty of printers who use film. And clearly, the prepress house doesn't choose the printer -- it's usually the other way around.

In our case, we believe that the design firm should choose the application, the printer and the printing technique, assuming the firm can procure the services at a fair price. And I don't know of printer who charges more to accept InDesign files.

All of that having been said, I think you're exactly right -- Quark isn't going anywhere anytime soon. But I'm looking forward to the day (which I believe is coming) when Xpress vs. InDesign is pretty much like Illustrator vs. FreeHand. Everyone takes 'em, no one bitches and moans, and healthy competition between the two companies can benefit the end-user.

In the meantime, it will be up to designers to make the case to their clients (or bosses) that InDesign produces better looking type* (undisputably), and that attractive documents are in everyone's best interest.

Yo. Peace.

* I swear. It takes most people I know a LOT of time to get decent looking paragraphs (not to mention individual words) in Xpress. In InDesign, you have to TRY to make things look ugly. I'm a type nut, though.

johnmccollum
Jun 10, 2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by BillGates
Why were you forced to use Quark?
Can you still be forced to use Quark?

I'm hoping you never again give in and use Quark. Delete it from your computer now!

I had this big project (for sorta big money) that required my presence on-site at a client's office. He wanted me to create documents that would be editable by production artists in his stable.

Never again.

evoluzione
Jun 10, 2003, 09:56 PM
ok, New York City, one of the most diverse, incredible cities on the planet. way way behind when it comes to technology, this is one of the bad points when it comes to a relatively new city, all that once new technology is just too expensive to replace when something bigger and better comes along. trust me, nyc is behind in so many ways, and for this reason quark will not fail. i am working at a company right now and they do not have ONE machine running OS X, they can't, the scanners and proofers (proofers not printers) will not run in OS X. Sure, InDesign when used in conjunction with Acrobat is mindblowing. it totally throws the publishing world into a major tizz. it's gonna take a long time to get there though. and until that happens, quark will sell well.



having said that, moxie, i'm with you, keyboard shortcuts are where it's at with quark. i rarely use a mouse either. i can do so much in quark in so little time it's funny. also, quark 3.32 is still a killer app.

Laurent
Jun 11, 2003, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by MDiddy
I am a Graphic Design student, so I may be way off-but I think InDesign is FAR more refined than Quark 5, and has all of the commonalities of a modern design application. And its resembalance to Illustrator & Photoshop have helped me become far more comfortable with it. I know I have to know Quark, but I choose to use InDesign. Oh don't get me wrong, the UI itself is pure crap! But since it's the result that matter, I rather work with QuarkXpress and get precise things. I have learn to use it, and I work faster in it, even though I've been using InDesign for a year now and manage to get things done.

If only I was happy with InDesign, but I am not. Maybe InDesign 3.0 will bring less palette floating everywhere and more precise tools (like guides for instance - Illustrator-like is a real pain).

Belly-laughs
Jun 11, 2003, 06:42 AM
So Quark think they´ve finally closed the gap. Well, behold ID3!

People mention the similaritets between Xpress an Windows users. Don´t we all now see the similarities between Quark and Microsoft?

@HomeNow
Jun 11, 2003, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by DriverDan
Oh the delicious irony; today, our company (85 seat textbook publishing company) began training staff on our new page layout software, InDesign. I'm sitting there in the training lab, my head spinning with all of I.D.'s remarkable new features, its friendliness, thoughtfullness, stability, intuitiveness, and consistency with the other Adobe apps, and during a break I fire up Safari and find that Quark is finally being updated, about 2 years too late. And I realize how wonderful it is for Adobe to have so effectively broken Quark's strangle-hold on the industry. It's going to be fun to watch Quark play catch-up now, but I think Quark's delay, and Adobe's know-how, ensure that Quark will be relegated to relatively simple business tasks, as PageMaker was when Quark first appeared. More irony. I never thought I'd ever look at Apple's home page, (which now bears the Quark announcement) and think, "who cares?":rolleyes:

I work at a "full service provider" for the Textbook industry, where we do Editorial through final printed books. I've watched this issue for a while with interest. So far our customers (including all of the major publishers in the industry) still have us working in Quark 4.11, with the odd PageMaker or FileMaker jog that comes through. A number of them have expressed interest in InDesign and are testing it (as we have done a litte of as well) as well as FileMaker. I have not heard of a commitment by any of the publishers to a program other than Quark 4.11. I do think that the industry is looking for a better solution, which will save them time and money (one of them is sending the production work to India). Quark's days could be numbered, but I wouldnt count them out yet. The fact is that most of the planning for the jobs that are bieng done this year is done, the contracts bieng awarded, and work soon to be started. I dont see a major industry (text book publishing) move away from Quark 4.11 untill next spring, after all the testing and comparison of workflows can be fully investigated and new projects kick off.

Belly-laughs
Jun 11, 2003, 07:48 AM
Originally posted by evoluzione
also, quark 3.32 is still a killer app.

Er... right. Who do you do work for, if any? Live by your nick, move on!

groovebuster
Jun 11, 2003, 08:16 AM
Fits to the whole Quark story! :D

Check this out! (http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/442.html)

groovebuster

DavidFDM
Jun 11, 2003, 08:31 AM
Against both conventional wisdom and my own experience, I am hoping Quark got version 6 right. I have 5 working in Classic with only one glaring issue - screen redraws. To get around that i just tap F7 - Show/Hide Guides. I am just looking for stability. I could care less about Web features or XML but a better table function would rock.

I have been using ID for a while now and I like it. The only issue I have is text wrapping. I think I need to read up on that. I had some body copy wrapping around a tinted illustration with a headline above both of them and on its own layer but the text wrap still was affecting the headline. Anyone have any thoughts?

- David

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by johnmccollum
No doubt. I just checked it out: "Full resolution preview."

"Dang, Clem, these new awto-mo-beels come with FLOOR BOARDS!"

Whoop-de-freaking-do.

After switching to InDesign at the time of (the admitedly buggy, but still better-than-Quark) version 1.0, I've gotten so used to full-res previews that when I was forced to use Quark on a project, I felt like I had returned to the days of Pagemaker 2.0.

You, Mangoman sound like a smart dude surfin' the wave of the future. The rest of you Quark lame-o-s can eat my alpha channels.

Peace.

Full res previews but only if you give quark your serial no, name, addrss, date of birth, social security number, access to your machine at all times, keys to your new car, your first born, a letter from you gramma and $899.

I got my full res previews with InDesign for $199. ;)

The spyware they have installed is ridiculous.

Jeff Harrell
Jun 11, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
The spyware they have installed is ridiculous. In all fairness, Quark's licensing scheme for version 6 sounds absolutely industry-standard for the UNIX world. Site licenses live on a license server: very typical stuff that's understandably unfamiliar to personal computer users.

But the big, giant disclaimer is that I haven't actually used Quark since the days of 3.32 (which I agree was the pinnacle of Quark's evolution, kinda like Illustrator 3.2 or Photoshop 3.0.4). If there's something out there about the Quark license system that I don't know about, I reserve the right to pretend that it was actually my evil twin who wrote this.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by BillGates
There are always exceptions and I know its bad to generalize but... The pre-press industry is full of highly skilled Quark users. Many of them wont admit it but deep down it scars the hell out of them that if the company they work for switches to ID2 that they will no longer have as much value. They have spent years honing their Quark skills only to see that all go out the window. They fear a long learning curve.

I've found that designers that use Quark as a design tool are very willing to switch. However they rarely take the product through to completion. They pass the files off to the so called pre-press pros. The pre-press people are full of excuses as to why not to switch. Many times they refuse to even look at ID2.

Its more complicated than demanding that your pre-press house our print provider use ID2. What if your the pre-press house and your clients what the files back as Quark files?

Much of the work done in Quark is done using version 4.x. Now what are they going to do that Quark 6 only runs in OSX and Quark 4 and 5 only run in OS9? They will likely have as many compatibility issues between ID2 and Quark 4 as they do trying to do work in Quark 6 when the client wants Quark 4 files.

Believe me, the pre-press industry will live in the past as long as they possibly can!

God. What about all of the metal typesetters who had to learn a WHOLE new technology when the computer became a staple.

THAT was a learning curve! The switch from Quark to ID is relatively painless. I did it in about an hour, used Xpress shortcuts for awhile, moved to AI shortcuts and I was off and running.

The thing is, all of you people are identifying the workman with the software. And that's lame and stupid and dumb. If the workman cannot adapt his work habits to suit the environment (i.e. a Quark studio v. and InDesign studio) then maybe his value IS less. His cognitive abilities must be pretty lacking if one cannot make a switch.

How about all of the steelworkers in Southwestern PA? When the mills closed, they didn't jump on Macrumors and post about how Quark has such an established base and how switching will make them lose their value.

When they lost their jobs, alot of them went out and started businesses. Bars, Restaurants, music stores, etc etc etc.

Some got some extra education and started corporations.

As a small business owner, if a prospective empolyee walked in for an interview and told me he would only work on Quark because he's invested so much time in it... well, his resumé would be in the circular file faster than you can say "multiple undos"

and that's the secret of the workplace-- adapt or move on. :) Tough world. But if they wanna cry about their skillset being compromised.... i'll play 'em a song on the worlds smallest violin.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
In all fairness, Quark's licensing scheme for version 6 sounds absolutely industry-standard for the UNIX world. Site licenses live on a license server: very typical stuff that's understandably unfamiliar to personal computer users.

But the big, giant disclaimer is that I haven't actually used Quark since the days of 3.32 (which I agree was the pinnacle of Quark's evolution, kinda like Illustrator 3.2 or Photoshop 3.0.4). If there's something out there about the Quark license system that I don't know about, I reserve the right to pretend that it was actually my evil twin who wrote this.

That's not what's bothersome. What's bothersome is that to UNLOCK features that you paid $899 for, you MUST register it over the net.

That's just lame. I mean, for a $20 shareware program, sure. But not for a friggin' "industry standard" software package. It's like "if you're good, mommy quark will give you an extra cookie at dinner"

Eff that :D

mangoman
Jun 11, 2003, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
It's like "if you're good, mommy quark will give you an extra cookie at dinner"

Eff that :D

Heh. I love it! And totally agree.

I experienced upgrading 4x to Quark 5 when it was released. I remember the elitist attitude of the sales rep on the phone. Wow, was that annoying. Wasn't there an incident where Quark users picketed the Quark booth at a Mac show a few years back?

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 09:03 AM
I've registered plenty of apps over the net...
Registration is not spyware.

Alot of people have been waiting for Quark to go OSX native.
Why are so many people bellyaching?

evoluzione
Jun 11, 2003, 09:03 AM
yeah i read that register for high res previews thing. makes me stick, i'm a quark "fan" rather than iD but that is just not "mac", i'd expect that in the windows world, but no, i don't like that at all. i still wanna try Q6 out mind, but i'm also looking forward to iD3, maybe it'll tempt me to make the jump for good, who knows, and Moxie, I totally agree with you, adapt and move on, if you don't/can't someone else will and you'll be left behind.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
I've registered plenty of apps over the net...
Registration is not spyware.

Alot of people have been waiting for Quark to go OSX native.
Why are so many people bellyaching?

You obvious only read what you wanted to read from my posts: It's not neccessarily the registration that bugs me, it's that you have to do it to unlock a feature that's been in a certain, far superior app for years, and you STILL have to pay $899 for it.

Lame.

And if you don't want to register it (and i know many people who don't, why i don't know....) You can't even save the documents you're working on.

Big brother? Sounds like it to me. :)

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 09:15 AM
Obviously it's in DEMO mode until you register it. At least there's no DONGLE! hehe

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
Obviously it's in DEMO mode until you register it. At least there's no DONGLE! hehe

an $899 demo. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

evoluzione
Jun 11, 2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by Moxiemike
an $899 demo. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


i hate that being treated like a criminal thing. when i walk into a store in nyc and have to check my bag, wtf!? i just walk straight back out again, i'm not gonna leave my bag, which sometimes has a lot of expensive stuff in it, with some $5/hour jackass. this quark "demo" thing just smacks of that.

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 09:50 AM
A guy is making $5 an hour and that makes him a jackass?

Someone is a snob.

Is the hostess that checks your coat at a nice restaurant a jackass too?

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
A guy make $5 an hour and that makes him a jackass?

Someone is a snob.

no. i think that the $5/hr jackass is a rent-a-cop with a probable inclination towards abuse of power.

:) :) :) :)

THAT's what makes him a jackass. Like Quark ABUSING their "power"

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 09:59 AM
How is checking your bag and getting a number
or more often than not a playing card... abuse of power?

Gee making someone prove that they bought the software sure is abusive.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
How is checking your bag and getting a number
or more often than not a playing card... abuse of power?

Gee making someone prove that they bought the software sure is abusive.

Obviously you're only gonna listen to yourself. I'm not saying i havce a problem with registering the software. I register ALL of my software, and i'm all legal and squeaky clean. The problem is that to unlock features you HAVE to register it.

I know companies who don't want to register their very legal versions of software. Why? I dunno. But... they SHOULD have the option of getting a 100% feature full software package for their $899 sacrifice,.

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 10:08 AM
So purchasing software is a sacrifice now? Does that count during Lent?

I thought I was doing a good job at listening... I'm just not AGREEING with you.

JBracy
Jun 11, 2003, 10:26 AM
At the end of the day it all boils down to fact that Quark is greedy. I know I used to work for them.

This is going to come back and shoot them in the foot, because like it or not 50% of their market base is using a pirate copy - and Quark knows it.

They used to like this fact because they would say that they'd rather have:
100 paying users
50 pirate users
5 Indesign users

than
125 paying users
30 Indesign users

Now they have decided that they would rather have the cash from 125 users than from 100. Personally I think it's a mistake - if you were a student, self-employed designer, startup, etc... and you had the choice what would you do - buy/bootleg ID, PS, ILL, ACROBAT for $1000 (or less) or buy Quark for $1000 and then buy PS, ILL, ACROBAT? I know what I'd do!

Quark WILL lose market share over this.

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 10:35 AM
Rob a bank and use the cash to buy the software. It's just as legal.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
So purchasing software is a sacrifice now? Does that count during Lent?

I thought I was doing a good job at listening... I'm just not AGREEING with you.

Again, you're gonna twist what i'm saying and im gonna keep upping my post count.

$899 is expensive when you consider you can get aDesign Collection for $999. For a lot of small firms, $899 is a ton of cash. Hell, for a lot of Eastern European countries, $899 might as well be $8999.

And lets just assume that people don't want to register it, whatever their reasons may be. $899 is a lot for a demo. :)

JBracy
Jun 11, 2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
Rob a bank and use the cash to buy the software. It's just as legal.

I'm not talking about legal issues - I'm talking about what Quark's mind set was and how it has changed.

Quark also used to offer education discounts - now they don't.

My point is that the more difficult Quark makes it for people to learn and use the software - the more people will switch.

Under Quark's new scheme I can't have the software on my Mac at work and then have it installed at home as well - so That I can bring work home with me if I need to. Legally I couldn't do this before either, but I did - It meant that I could be more productive - Productivity is good - employers like that. If I can be more productive with another application then I will use that - even if it means a few weeks of fumbling around and re-learning some stuff.

Most license agreements nowadays allow for the software to be installed on multiple computers - as long as it is only used on one at a time. Quark does not allow for the fact that some designers have a PowerMac for their design work at home/office and a laptop that they bring to a customer to do the final touches. Do they really expect my to buy 2 copies of XPress - or even worse Passport (Which incidentally they still sell for version 6 even though OSX is multi-lingual!)

johnmccollum
Jun 11, 2003, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Laurent


If only I was happy with InDesign, but I am not. Maybe InDesign 3.0 will bring less palette floating everywhere and more precise tools (like guides for instance - Illustrator-like is a real pain).

You can customize palettes in ID2, and you can specify exact guide placement using the transform palette. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the Quark advantage in these areas, but I've never had any problem with precision in InDesign.

Enlighten me.

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 11:29 AM
Software is a business expense... write it off.

Don't you people have credit cards?

Rustus Maximus
Jun 11, 2003, 11:36 AM
They used to like this fact because they would say that they'd rather have:
100 paying users
50 pirate users
5 Indesign users

than
125 paying users
30 Indesign users

Now they have decided that they would rather have the cash from 125 users than from 100.

Quark WILL lose market share over this.

How did the 50 pirate users count as market share in the first place? Looks to me like they gained 25 paying users.

All Quark is asking you to do is register the software. If you paid for it, what's the problem? It gives them a more accurate sample of who their users are and what computers those users are working on. Allowing some of the more sensible management at Quark to tell their nutcase leader when he asks, "Why are we bothering with Apple anyway?" they can say "Because we have hundreds of thousands of paying Apple users, that's why."

I realize that this IS Quark I am talking about and that conversation probably wouldn't happen but...it is Quark's perogative as to whether they make you register online or not. If you don't like it...buy InDesign...those are our options as Designers...but at least we now HAVE another option...and Quark will adapt, innovate and listen to it's customers or die off.

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
How did the 50 pirate users count as market share in the first place? Looks to me like they gained 25 paying users.

All Quark is asking you to do is register the software. If you paid for it, what's the problem? It gives them a more accurate sample of who their users are and what computers those users are working on. Allowing some of the more sensible management at Quark to tell their nutcase leader when he asks, "Why are we bothering with Apple anyway?" they can say "Because we have hundreds of thousands of paying Apple users, that's why."

I realize that this IS Quark I am talking about and that conversation probably wouldn't happen but...it is Quark's perogative as to whether they make you register online or not. If you don't like it...buy InDesign...those are our options as Designers...but at least we now HAVE another option...and Quark will adapt, innovate and listen to it's customers or die off.

Which is exactly what i've been saying. but for the people who don't wanna switch, they;re strongarmed.

I'm not saying quark is the answer, nor it is the devil. but it's not ideal. I think ID is a bit more ideal to a smaller design firm.

JBracy
Jun 11, 2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
How did the 50 pirate users count as market share in the first place?

All Quark is asking you to do is register the software. If you paid for it, what's the problem? It gives them a more accurate sample of who their users are and what computers those users are working on. Allowing some of the more sensible management at Quark to tell their nutcase leader when he asks, "Why are we bothering with Apple anyway?" they can say "Because we have hundreds of thousands of paying Apple users, that's why."

Now, it is Quark's perogative as to whether they make you register online or not. If you don't like it...buy InDesign...those are our options as Designers...but at least we now HAVE another option...and Quark will adapt, innovate and listen to it's customers or die off.

1) Because that was 50 Quark users who when they came to be employed would demand QXP instead of ID.

2) The problem is that not only are they asking you to register it they requiring that you activate it on your Hardware:

http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/tech_info/product_activation.html

As I said this limits me to running the software on 1 computer, so it means that I need to buy 1 copy for my PM and 1 copy for my PB.

3) when has Quark ever "adapt(ed), innovate(d) and (or) listen(ed) to it's customers"?

Laurent
Jun 11, 2003, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by chubakka
A guy is making $5 an hour and that makes him a jackass?

Someone is a snob.

Is the hostess that checks your coat at a nice restaurant a jackass too?If you are able to fully use Adobe InDesign or QuarkXpress, you shouldn't be making 5$ an hour...

Moxiemike
Jun 11, 2003, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by JBracy
[B
3) when has Quark ever "adapt(ed), innovate(d) and (or) listen(ed) to it's customers"? [/B]

SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO SO True

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 12:00 PM
I make WAY more than $5 an hour.

That was a comment about an OT discussion.

He was bitching about having to check his bag with some "jackass at a store making $5 an hour"

Laurent
Jun 11, 2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by johnmccollum
You can customize palettes in ID2, and you can specify exact guide placement using the transform palette. Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the Quark advantage in these areas, but I've never had any problem with precision in InDesign.

Enlighten me.If you put everything you need together in one tall palette (with many stages) and you need to switch from a short tab to a tall one (like the Transform tab and the Paragraph tab), the palette will move up to the menu bar — it doesn't stay in place. You can lock its position, but it will be down 1 pixel the next time you open AID. I hope Adobe will address a solution to this problem with AID3...

It's all small things like that that bugs me! Like the fact that Mac OS X Finder won't remember the width of my columns the first time I open a window. I have to close the first window and open a second one for it the magicly remember that I prefer 3 large columns. >_<

Laurent
Jun 11, 2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by chubakka
I make WAY more than $5 an hour.

That was a comment about an OT discussion.

He was bitching about having to check his bag with some "jackass at a store making $5 an hour"But store clerks working at 5$ an hour ARE jackass... (JOKING)

Sorry, I should have read this more carefully...

Rustus Maximus
Jun 11, 2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by JBracy
3) when has Quark ever "adapt(ed), innovate(d) and (or) listen(ed) to it's customers"?

Hmmmm...I think I said that was unlikely...

Origianlly posted by...ME
I realize that this IS Quark I am talking about and that conversation probably wouldn't happen...

So, now going over the first two points...

Originally posted by JBracy
1) Because that was 50 Quark users who when they came to be employed would demand QXP instead of ID.

2) The problem is that not only are they asking you to register it they requiring that you activate it on your Hardware:

http://www.quark.com/products/xpres...activation.html

As I said this limits me to running the software on 1 computer, so it means that I need to buy 1 copy for my PM and 1 copy for my PB.

1) Those 50 pirate users, if they ever do work for someone, will do what most of us have to do...they will work on whatever software the company provides them or tells them to use...

2) AGAIN...it is Quark's perogative as to how they choose to allow you to use their software (no matter how much you may think that choice SUCKS)...you either do it that way or go somewhere else. Not too long ago, there was really nowhere else to go...NOW there is. So, again, Quark will either adapt and listen to it's customers or they will vanish. It's the way capitalism works ;)

johnmccollum
Jun 11, 2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Rustus Maximus

1) Those 50 pirate users, if they ever do work for someone, will do what most of us have to do...they will work on whatever software the company provides them or tells them to use...

I think that there is some validity to the notion that a vast user base is beneficial to a software company regardless of whether the user is registered.

That's why software companies practically give away (or at least they used to -- not sure about now) their products to students. Not becuase they give a fetid dingo kidney about education, but because they know that a sufficient number of students working with essentially free copies of the software will eventually purchase it.

Besides, in developing countries, NO ONE PAYS FOR THE SOFTWARE. Across SE Asia, the cost of a $900 layout package is roughly equivalent to 2 or 3 years' salary. But the widespread use of Xpress in those countries helps sustain Quark's market dominance, even though EVERYONE buys the software ILLEGALLY for $2, available on every other corner in Phnom Penh.

So, what's my point? I don't mean to detract from the valid argument that software pirating is unethical. I just think that Quark may be cutting off its warty nose to spite its ugly face by making semi-legitimate, gray-area use of its products impossible.

Remember, it used to be ILLEGAL to make taped copies of one's own albums. Or to tape a football game on NFL. I'll admit. I have an 'illegal' copy of my legally purchased software on my Powerbook. I bought it for my desktop, and I didn't get an extra site license for my notebook. If I had to choose between a product I like that I can put both places and a product I love that I could use in multiple locations? Well, I'd have to REALLY love it to buy it twice.

Too much typing. Not enough working. Out.

zarathustra
Jun 11, 2003, 01:23 PM
I hope Quark goes the way of the Dodo! I learned it, knew it in and out - keyboard shortcuts and all - I was the king! Then I tried InDesign, and never again wanted to touch Quark.

I see the problem as such: The people who bellyache about ID being too unintuitive and such hogwash, never learned how to build clean, correct Quark files to begin with. They blotched it together, and when they try to blotch it in ID, guess what? They'll have to learn a new way of faking it... I find that for basic layout procedures, ID and Quark are 90% identical. But where ID shines is the improvements in the advanced features, and features that are not even in Quark!

Try this, lock something down in Quark. It should be locked, meaning you can't move it or change it right? Well, select the item and "accidentaly" push and hold on of your arrow keys! oh man, the box moved 25 notches, but wat I can undo a few of them? How is that locked? Or I lock a text box so a production artist can do some graphics, but I don't want him mucking with the text. Wait, Quark let's you edit the content of a locked text box! In ID, I lock an item - it's locked, for practical purposes it's not even there...

And that's just one out of dozens...

And the thing about ID2 and palettes everywhere : i beta test ID and all I can say that in upcoming versions of ID this will no longer be a problem!

:D

JBracy
Jun 11, 2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
Hmmmm...I think I said that was unlikely...



So, now going over the first two points...



1) Those 50 pirate users, if they ever do work for someone, will do what most of us have to do...they will work on whatever software the company provides them or tells them to use...

2) AGAIN...it is Quark's perogative as to how they choose to allow you to use their software (no matter how much you may think that choice SUCKS)...you either do it that way or go somewhere else. Not too long ago, there was really nowhere else to go...NOW there is. So, again, Quark will either adapt and listen to it's customers or they will vanish. It's the way capitalism works ;)

1) Actually, my experience is that most companies will do what the designer wants - but that's just my experience.

2) I know it's their perogative to do what they want. I thought we were having a discussion about how it SHOULD be not how it IS. My point is that I think it is both unfair and foolish for Quark to tie their application to your hardware. It prohibits me from owning 2 computers and 1 copy of each application. As I stated before most developers consider it fair use for an individual to have the application installed on more than one computer as long as it is only running on 1 machine at any given time. I can understand tying an OS to hardware, but not an Application.

3) Those who know Quark (I used to work for them) know that it is run by a man who has publicly stated his belief that Apple is an insignificant platform, who believes that Apple is only still afloat because of him, that most users would rather switch to PC than to ID. He has no faith in the Apple platform.

4) Quark are now focusing the majority of their development time and money on Enterprise solutions which will eventually negate their need to maintain a desktop platform. Mark my words fairly soon there will not be a QuarkXPress on the Mac.

chubakka
Jun 11, 2003, 01:51 PM
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=42544

Rustus Maximus
Jun 11, 2003, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by JBracy
2) I know it's their perogative to do what they want. I thought we were having a discussion about how it SHOULD be not how it IS. My point is that I think it is both unfair and foolish for Quark to tie their application to your hardware. It prohibits me from owning 2 computers and 1 copy of each application. As I stated before most developers consider it fair use for an individual to have the application installed on more than one computer as long as it is only running on 1 machine at any given time. I can understand tying an OS to hardware, but not an Application.

I agree with you that Quark is making a foolish business decision...I think we are actually on the same page here. What I was trying to say is that there isn't much we can do about it as consumer's except for purchasing their competitor's product.

Having worked for Quirk you know better than most that they have become very hostile to the Mac platform (which I find strange given that Apple is the reason they exist). If Quark wants to abandon the Mac, they can...it's their business and they can drive it into the ground if they want. I don't see Quark dying completely but, as someone said earlier, I do see them being relegated to a more mundane, Publisher-like existence. The market will decide that. InDesign is also pushing on the Windows side so Quark's abandonment of the Apple platform won't help their failure to innovate better than Adobe. They have been asleep at the wheel and now the race is neck and neck...tortoise and the hare, etc. etc.

I agree...Quark isn't long for the world of Apple...but I don't think it will be Quark who leaves us I think it will be the other way around, it's already starting.

Originally posted by johnmccollum
So, what's my point? I don't mean to detract from the valid argument that software pirating is unethical. I just think that Quark may be cutting off its warty nose to spite its ugly face by making semi-legitimate, gray-area use of its products impossible.

What is semi-legitimate? It either is or it isn't legitimate. There is no gray area. And what makes you think that most of those who are using a $2 pirated copy or a free pirated copy will ever purchase the software? They got it free before...why buy it now? Honor among thieves? And who says pirates are brand loyal? They will use whatever gets the job done that they can find for little or no cost to themselves. If that's InDesign fine, If it's Quirk, fine.

areyouwishing
Jun 11, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by zarathustra

I see the problem as such: The people who bellyache about ID being too unintuitive and such hogwash, never learned how to build clean, correct Quark files to begin with. They blotched it together, and when they try to blotch it in ID, guess what? They'll have to learn a new way of faking it...
:D

Im sorry but what the heck kind of blanket statement is this? I know college professors that refuse to use Indesign because of its inefficiencies. Saying that "everyone" who uses quark and doesn't like ID, doesn't know how to build "clean, correct quark files." it just a broad generalization that is not even close to true...

OH GREAT MASTER OF THE QUARK...WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER a "clean" quark layout? Guides? Style sheets? Master Pages? Hanging Punctuation? Typesetter Marks? I'd really like to know.

I know so called designers that use InDesign because they are used to using their precious illustrator and are too lazy to learn a new program.

johnmccollum
Jun 11, 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Rustus Maximus
What is semi-legitimate? It either is or it isn't legitimate. There is no gray area. And what makes you think that most of those who are using a $2 pirated copy or a free pirated copy will ever purchase the software? They got it free before...why buy it now? Honor among thieves? And who says pirates are brand loyal? They will use whatever gets the job done that they can find for little or no cost to themselves. If that's InDesign fine, If it's Quirk, fine.

You've missed my point on at least two counts.

1. Semi-legitimate (in my mind): Purchasing one copy of InDesign. Installing it on my desktop. Also installing it on my laptop.

Also semi-legitimate: "borrowing" a typeface, using it for a mockup or to present for a logo, purchasing it if the client chooses the logo, but not if they don't.

Also semi-legitimate: Burning a copy of track 03 from Annie Lennox' new album, buying the album if you like it.

I'm not a total relativist, but I think that there are gray areas here. And I think that Quark and Adobe and Annie Lennox understand and tolerate some of these gray uses that adhere to the spirit, but not the letter of the law.

The second category of uses is not gray, it's pretty much black-illegal. But let's look at this pragmatically.

2. $2 pirated copies: I never meant to imply that Narin in Cambodia will ever purchase Quark at full price. Duh. It's roughly equivalent to a $62,000 piece of software. He's already spent the equivalent of $50,000 for his PC.

What your missing here is that Quark (big picture) needs a vast (even if unpaying) user base to retain market dominance among paying customers. Enough of the people who prefer Xpress based on its ubiquity will be able and willing to spend the $900 it takes to legitimately own it to keep Quark in business.

And not that 2 wrongs make a right, but I am not even interested (for this discussion) in debating the morality of making the product so prohibitively expensive in most areas of the world that anyone who needs to use the product is literally forced to use pirated versions...

Peace.

zarathustra
Jun 11, 2003, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by areyouwishing
Im sorry but what the heck kind of blanket statement is this? I know college professors that refuse to use Indesign because of its inefficiencies. Saying that "everyone" who uses quark and doesn't like ID, doesn't know how to build "clean, correct quark files." it just a broad generalization that is not even close to true...

OH GREAT MASTER OF THE QUARK...WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER a "clean" quark layout? Guides? Style sheets? Master Pages? Hanging Punctuation? Typesetter Marks? I'd really like to know.

I know so called designers that use InDesign because they are used to using their precious illustrator and are too lazy to learn a new program.

Whoa tiger! Calm down a bit. First of all don't misquote me - i said the people who bellyache over it's intuitiveness are the ones that need to have a reality check. As I said, 90% of page layout is the same in ID and Quark. I asked people to find different excuses than "it's too different" or "I don't like it". In the end it's a tool that gets the job done. If Macromedia came out with FirePress tomorrow (an imaginary page layout software) that kicks ID's ass, and is as effective in real life workflows, I would switch in a heartbeat.

I also know professors who HATE ID, because they have been teaching Quark for 10+ years and don't want the carpet pulled from under them or god-forbid learn something new. I just would LOVE to hear what those inefficiencies are (and that was not a blanket statement from your part? buddy?).

BTW, while ID is similar to the "precious" Illustrator, by no means is it without a learning curve. On your resumé you list InDesign, so you should know that. Oh, and the portfolio part on your site doesn't work in Safari. the links do not open.

areyouwishing
Jun 11, 2003, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by zarathustra
First of all don't misquote me - i said the people who bellyache over it's intuitiveness are the ones that need to have a reality check. As I said, 90% of page layout is the same in ID and Quark.

I wouldn't say bellyache (although I have heard people) but I don't think Indesign is as intuitive as Quark..but that has a lot to do with how long they have been around...respectively. And, Ill give you 50-65% consistency between apps...i think 90% is a little high, Indesign alone has 10% more features. ;)

Originally posted by zarathustra
I also know professors who HATE ID, because they have been teaching Quark for 10+ years and don't want the carpet pulled from under them or god-forbid learn something new. I just would LOVE to hear what those inefficiencies are.

I see it both ways, but in my world I know a few "free spirited" professors that jump on the newest thing, because they want to know everything, and they still prefer quark (not because of features, but because of UI)

Originally posted by zarathustra
while ID is similar to the "precious" Illustrator, by no means is it without a learning curve.

I know a kid that went from illustrator single page layouts to a fullscale company catalog on Indesign...first time around, but he also didn't use style sheets..scary stuff.

Originally posted by zarathustra
Oh, and the portfolio part on your site doesn't work in Safari. the links do not open.

Doesn't work on any browser, that is the remaining part of the site to finish...helping my parents build a house became priority.

But even you hinted at the fact that the overwhelming (to some people)amount of palettes is going to be fixed, so you must at least to a certain degree understand that as an issue.

And I am still waiting on the clean design answer, I know I had a partial list going, Im really curious what your ideas of clean design are. ;)

zarathustra
Jun 11, 2003, 06:54 PM
I have often seen BAD Quark documents by so-called professionals (who today despise ID). Some of them are:

They don't set up their document right: let's say it's a brochure, 8x12, gate fold. they will create one large document, where they proceed to draw guides and crop marks on the document. So the actual document size != the brochure size. They will use frames filled white to hide parts of an image instead of creating the correct frame to contain the graphic. In multi paragraph text they break the paragraphs, or even sentences into separate boxes - if text is added, it doesn't flow. No stylesheets - this one is a biggie for me - in multi page (80+ pages) docs I'll have to go in after them and modify a type-size from 9 to 8 pt, well you get the idea. Tell you the truth, that's it for right now off the top of my head.

I still stick with my estimation of the 90% same for BASIC layout in ID and Quark.

I do not understand how is Quark more intuitive - because it has been aound longer? Well, tell me then how can you insert an auto-page number in Quark without using a keyboard shortcut? In ID, you create textbox (same as Quark), then ( I don't have ID on this machine, so it might be a different menu) Type:Insert Special Character:Auto Page Number. Or you can control-click, Insert Special Character:Auto Page Number. Well, what can I say I am biased. While we are at it, since you drag me onto the carpet, what exactly is inefficient about ID? Still waiting for your answer. :p

this is probably more than I ever wanted to reveal about myself, but Adobe created a movie a while back about the company i work for when we switched to ID (with version 1.0, what a b*tch that was, I have to admit. 1.5 gave it the Wow factor).

You can actually see me in the movie, how embarassing! I was still using ID 1.5 and OS9 back then! :p

mangoman
Jun 11, 2003, 07:29 PM
SO... which one are YOU?

areyouwishing
Jun 11, 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by zarathustra
While we are at it, since you drag me onto the carpet, what exactly is inefficient about ID? Still waiting for your answer. :p


Gradients, not that I would use them out of a page layout tool, since they band like crazy, but...

I have yet to find a way to use a specific spot color in a gradient with ID, if I want that spot color I have to select the CMYK percentages. I could make a gradient swatch, and then open the window etc. etc. but quark treats swatches like regular colors.

I think the ability to use any color on the fly can get people into trouble too, this is more of a user error thing though.

Make a text box in ID, make some lorem ipsum, select a word, click the select tool, go back to the text tool, and click the text box...the word is no longer selected, so if you kerned something and clicked off to see it unreversed, then click back on the word, you have to re-select it, quark knows what you had selected last for each text box (unless they are linked).

2 words...."Palette City" Sometimes this can work, like palettizing the usage/links window was a great idea, but there is a lot of stuff that could be a little more...streamlined, like the colors pallete

Quark tells you if you are using a type 1 font, open type, or truetype right where you select your font.

Quarks icons for type control are slightly better than ID's dropdown, waiting for a drop down to do all caps is not fun...just being picky here.

Despite the whole non-transparrent thing, I think Quarks Tables are easier to work.

Thats it for now, i might add to it if i think of more stuff.

P.S. Personally I use indesign more than Quark whenever i can, I could pick apart quark features all night.

zarathustra
Jun 11, 2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by areyouwishing
Gradients, not that I would use them out of a page layout tool, since they band like crazy, but...

I have yet to find a way to use a specific spot color in a gradient with ID, if I want that spot color I have to select the CMYK percentages. I could make a gradient swatch, and then open the window etc. etc. but quark treats swatches like regular colors.

I think the ability to use any color on the fly can get people into trouble too, this is more of a user error thing though.

Make a text box in ID, make some lorem ipsum, select a word, click the select tool, go back to the text tool, and click the text box...the word is no longer selected, so if you kerned something and clicked off to see it unreversed, then click back on the word, you have to re-select it, quark knows what you had selected last for each text box (unless they are linked).

2 words...."Palette City" Sometimes this can work, like palettizing the usage/links window was a great idea, but there is a lot of stuff that could be a little more...streamlined, like the colors pallete

Quark tells you if you are using a type 1 font, open type, or truetype right where you select your font.

Quarks icons for type control are slightly better than ID's dropdown, waiting for a drop down to do all caps is not fun...just being picky here.

Despite the whole non-transparrent thing, I think Quarks Tables are easier to work.

Thats it for now, i might add to it if i think of more stuff.

P.S. Personally I use indesign more than Quark whenever i can, I could pick apart quark features all night.

1. The Gradient: It works the same way as in Illustrator. You create 2 color swatches (can be any spot, CMYK, lab, etc). You draw a shape, apply gradient. You drag 1 color to 1 end of the gradient, the other color to the other end - voilà. Spot color to spot color gradient. Now you can drag the gradient itself into the swatch palette and you can reuse it any time.

2. On the fly color - not sure what you mean. That I can eyedrop a color out of the CMYK mixer? I still have to create a swatch for a spot or CMYK color through a dialog...

3. the text box thing. Of course the word gets deselcted - you told the program to pick a different tool. One thing about kerning in ID. You can have optical kerning that is 95% correct even from the most anal retentive designer's perspective. Just select the text, and instead of metric kerning, select optical. Bliss. Besides, you have your terms wrong. You are talking about tracking which affects whole words. Kerning is between two letters, and you cannot apply kerning even in Quark, if you have a word selected (more than 2 characters). So, kerning works exactly as it should in ID.

4. Palette city: never was a problem. Just hit tab to hide. I always arrange them the way I like them, and then don't move them. that's one mistake people do. they keep moving their palettes, instead of layoing them out then hiding them. Quark has a way more annoying "feature:. The "joe Pesci" effect. You open a dialog, then inside it you open an other one, then another, etc. then to get out, you have to go: *in Joe Pesci voice* OK, OK, OK, OK. How is that better from having everything a click away? (just think style sheets dialogs in Quark).

5. From a designer's standpoint it really doesn't matter what type of font you use, as long as it works. ID will package all necessary fonts for you, plus display warnings even before you can use the fonts that they might not work. OpenType fonts are great - and ID had them first. you might be able to pack fonts in Quark, but since using ID, I don't even worry about that anymore. Wouldn't you allready know what type of fonts you are using anyway? I mean, if I know that I have Warlock Pro, and I wnat to use it, I already know it's OpenType. ID will pack it for me, that's it.

6. Not sure what you mean about the drop down menu... Any decent Quark user will tell you that you should NEVER use the italic, bold, small caps, etc. buttons to make a font italic, bold, small cap. You should instead select the appropriate printer font. When you hit those buttons, only the screen fonts of those variations load. When it goes to print most of the time you get a courier font. So, on this issue, you are just using quark wrong. iD on the other hand, when you tell it to use italic, bold, small cap, etc. from the drop down menu, it will go to the printer font and substitute it for you...

7. Don't even get me started on the whole tables issue. Please, Quark's tables don't even come close to ID table features. Can you span a Quark table into several Text boxes? Can you rotate them arbitrary degrees? Can you have the strokes selectively adjusted? Can you merge cells whichever you want (horizontal, vertical)? Can you color each cell? Dude, this tables comment alone let me know that you haven't even scratched ID.

Please get off your high horse about Quark, and just give ID another look. If you have questions, I would be more than happy to answer your questions.

*edit*

sorry, forgot to add smileys, etc. where appropriate. I went out drinking and just got back, so I am not sure this will all be coherent.... :D :D :D It's only a *********g program, why can't we all be friends?

areyouwishing
Jun 12, 2003, 12:12 AM
Well, to summarize, all the stuff you said is true, and I already knew that stuff (especially with the tables) you and i were having a discussion on intuitiveness...not features. Your answer to my tables preference was more along the lines of 'indesign can 1,000 more things with its tables' which i already knew, i was saying that i thought quarks tables were easier to use.

As for the bold button, i don't use the bold or itallic buttons...i was talking about all caps...which you even quoted, and the only way a typesetter would go and change that, is if they capped everything by hand, and i know a printer would have told me by now if he/she had to do that.

Ive had magazines spec that they want ONLY type1 fonts, thats why i brought up the type issue. It's becomming less of an issue because of PDF though.

As far as the color goes..people are lazy and don't use the swatch palette therefore i could see someone just randomly selecting like 10 different blues (thinking its the same blue) just because they are used to illustrator colors...but i said it was a user error problem with people.

As far as indesign is concerned, me...personally, i like it better than quark...hands down, and as i stated before i use it when ever i can. There is no high horse here, i just like to stir the pot. :D :D

Drinking eh? We can definately be friends. Cheers to the Graphic Designers that like to bicker about programs! :D :D

zarathustra
Jun 12, 2003, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by areyouwishing
Drinking eh? We can definately be friends. Cheers to the Graphic Designers that like to bicker about programs! :D :D

Well, let's drink to that! :p

Moxiemike
Jun 12, 2003, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by zarathustra
Well, let's drink to that! :p

Hmm. 10 past 9, EST... i can do a shot or four! ;)

JBracy
Jun 12, 2003, 08:36 AM
Let me first off state that I am definitly more of a fan of ID than QXP.

Originally posted by zarathustra
7. Don't even get me started on the whole tables issue. Please, Quark's tables don't even come close to ID table features. Can you span a Quark table into several Text boxes? Can you rotate them arbitrary degrees? Can you have the strokes selectively adjusted? Can you merge cells whichever you want (horizontal, vertical)? Can you color each cell? Dude, this tables comment alone let me know that you haven't even scratched ID.

This is just wrong. Quarks tables are actually better - and worst than ID. I'll state how they are better and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I used to work for Quark and had several discussions with Adobe about this as well so.....

1) You CAN have the strokes selectively adjusted!
2) You CAN merge cells however you want!
3) You CAN color each cell!

Now with ID can you place a picture in a cell and re-size it and move it so it is not anchored to the top left corner of the image? NO! You have to edit the image in PS and get it exactly the right size and cropped so that there is nothing to the top left of the image that you don't want showing.

Basically Quark and Adobe came at the tables thing from 2 different angles. Adobe made them into basic spreadsheets - ie text based. Quark made them into grouped text and picture boxes. (One great feature in QXP - make a table with text and images, now save the file as QXP 4, re-open it and you have a bunch of grouped boxes!)

e-coli
Jun 12, 2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by JBracy
Now with ID can you place a picture in a cell and re-size it and move it so it is not anchored to the top left corner of the image? NO! You have to edit the image in PS and get it exactly the right size and cropped so that there is nothing to the top left of the image that you don't want showing

Thanks for playing, but that's incorrect.


On a much more important side, Quark 6 STILL doesn't take advantage of quartz text rendering.

So setting type is as fun as it was in 1986!!! :rolleyes:

give me a break.

JBracy
Jun 12, 2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by e-coli
Thanks for playing, but that's incorrect.


On a much more important side, Quark 6 STILL doesn't take advantage of quartz text rendering.

So setting type is as fun as it was in 1986!!! :rolleyes:

give me a break.

Actually I'm not. This is directly from Adobe's documentation and I have spoken to the Product manager about it as well:

A cell is like a text frame in which you can add text, inline graphics, or other tables.

To avoid an overset cell, first place the image outside the table, use the selection tool to resize and cut the image, and then use the type tool to paste the image into the table cell.

I don't know about you, but I would prefer to place the image in a cell just like I do in a picture box and then move it around to how I like it. Not place it somewhere else, crop it and then paste it as an inline graphic.

zarathustra
Jun 12, 2003, 03:10 PM
You mean you can't do this in InDesign?

Funny i did.... :eek:

JBracy
Jun 12, 2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by zarathustra
You mean you can't do this in InDesign?

Funny i did.... :eek:

Well I stand corrected. I don't know how you did it because I've been trying for a long time and even Adobe Tech support and the Product manager told me that it could not be done.

cthorp
Jun 13, 2003, 03:31 PM
I took the oppotunity to upgrade to 5 with a free upgrade to 6 when it came out. You would think Quark would respect those early adopterd but read the following email I received today.

Dear Quark? Customer,

The QuarkXPress? team is delighted to announce that QuarkXPress 6.0 will be released soon.

According to our records, you recently participated in a Quark promotion during which you purchased QuarkXPress 5 and qualified to receive a free upgrade to QuarkXPress 6.0.

The purpose of this e-mail message is to let you know that Quark is processing your order and will contact you within the next six weeks about receiving your free upgrade to QuarkXPress 6.0. We will send an order confirmation for your upgrade to you through e-mail, at which time you will have the opportunity to ask questions about your order or make address changes. We will then fill your order.

Because we strive to maintain a high level of service for our customers, we respectfully request that you not call Quark with questions about your free upgrade during the next six weeks. Our call center will be handling peak volume during this period, so callers may experience uncustomary delays.

------------------------------
I love the part about not calling so they can maintain their customer service. ID here I come!!!!

mangoman
Jun 13, 2003, 03:42 PM
THAT, my friend, is an excellent example, albeit a detail, of why Quark's future is deep in the digital toilet.

Thanks for sharing. It further confirms that my switch to ID a couple years ago was a good decision.

(chuckling) :p

j33pd0g
Jun 13, 2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by cthorp
Because we strive to maintain a high level of service for our customers...
... callers may experience uncustomary delays.


That's poor business... what is this bizzaro quark?

creativeczar
Jun 13, 2003, 07:34 PM
I think Quark 6 can only help the design market. I left Quark two years ago and haven't gone back. But that doesn't mean we don't need competition in the desktop publishing world. I feel certain Adobe is waiting for Quark 6.0 to make its debut so it can improve the features available in InDesign. I only wish printers were more flexible, than we'd all be a lot happier.