PDA

View Full Version : Quark 6 now shipping in the US


j33pd0g
Jun 19, 2003, 12:46 AM
http://www.quark.com/


The suggested retail price for QuarkXPress 6 is $1045 (U.S. dollars).
Purchase through the QuarkStore and save $100!

Wow... the sugested retail price is like $1045 Apple has it for $899.95... what's going on!

grouse
Jun 19, 2003, 06:00 AM
needless to say, while everyone gets themselves in a right old tizzy about the new macs, Quark 6 is a vital development and I would be very interested, as would many other readers, to hear of anyone who is rich enough to have bought it, and what their first impressions are, I've only seen beta reviews so far...

So please if you've got it, tell us and I can start planning which bank to rob.

maradong
Jun 19, 2003, 08:24 AM
yay, i ll order it immediatly ( for my father ) ,-)

jamilecrire
Jun 19, 2003, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by grouse
needless to say, while everyone gets themselves in a right old tizzy about the new macs, Quark 6 is a vital development and I would be very interested, as would many other readers, to hear of anyone who is rich enough to have bought it, and what their first impressions are, I've only seen beta reviews so far...

So please if you've got it, tell us and I can start planning which bank to rob.

Or you could just go to alt.bin.mac.apps

Personally I don't see the allure of Quark. I guess since I've never had to use it and I'm new to the mac scene I just bought InDesign since I have worked with PS, Illustrator and Acrobat on the PC. I love InDesign and for my very small print projects pdf seems to work fine.

grouse
Jun 19, 2003, 10:36 AM
Quark for all its many foilbles is in fact a very powerful and neat app.

It has a very small footprint, is tremendously responsive (even running through classic) and pretty much does what it says on the tin. It's very mac-cy and under-produced allowing up designers excellent control over our output.

It has always been incredibly expensive, but then it has been the standard for ages. And it doesn't try to be illustrator or photoshop or word or anything it isn't, whereas other applications do. Still I need to know more about the latest version, so I'm still holding my breath.

cheb712
Jun 19, 2003, 04:08 PM
I'll wait for a working demo. BUT, after seeing that price I'm seriously considering InDesign. (they at least have a demo)

Java
Jun 19, 2003, 04:39 PM
I feel Quark is too late. Working in the graphic design field, I know more and more printers who are switching to accomodate InDesign files. I know my printer does. I would rather spend $1000 on a new monitor instead of Quark.

I love Quark back in its day, but without innovation, they have lost their flair.

<offtopic>

Also, Adobe Acobat 6 rocks.

</offtopic>

dominick
Jun 21, 2003, 09:10 AM
i am a professional graphic artist
so i am qualified to say that usig quark is like having thumbtacks pressed into your eyeballs while your nipples are being remove with a belt sander.
howeber as a print applications specialist it is a necissarry evil since virtually every commercial printer (in FL at least) demands quark files out of economics & laziness. i love in design butr until it is purchased en masse by printers or more print shops can handle pdf we are screwed. i can say in all honsety quiark is MUCH worse than M$

beatle888
Jun 21, 2003, 01:50 PM
i dont really care for quark either. but the features it DOES allow you...its pretty straight forward and clean....quark is like the minimalists approach to page layout...which has its pros and cons. indesign is very flexible on the other hand and you can do a lot more. however i tend to get a bit overwhelmed by all the bounding boxes....for some reason i prefer quarks boxes when working with complicated files....keep in mind i havent used the layers feature in indesign so that should help. also, i tend to move palettes around a lot so im constantly playing janitor with the pallettes....this sorta sucks. still, i dont trust quark anymore...especially suggesting to mac users that they should switch platforms...does anyone remember THAT?

creativeczar
Jun 23, 2003, 09:15 PM
Played around with the beta version as was totally unimpressed. The best thing that can be said about Quark 6 is that it works in OSX. Beyond that it's more of the same. For those who have InDesign and Quark, compare the drop shadow features. Quark still has some catching up to do.

pubius
Jun 26, 2003, 02:16 PM
drop shadows? that is your concern? drop shadows? not only being one of the downfalls of design this past couple of centuries, i do not in any way think that it what we shall use to detimine the legitimacy of quark 6.
keep in mind here that i'm in full non-support of quark 6. i semi-patiently await the industy's ability to catch up to indesign. sorry, but that whole drop shadow thing threw me (enough to actually register and comment).

creativeczar
Jun 26, 2003, 02:58 PM
Yes,

I too agree on the overuse of drop shadows and stay away from them unless a client forces my hand. But when you compare the two features, the Quark option looks un-natural and cartoon-like.

Sorry to ruffle some design feathers. We shall see what difference Quark 6 will make in the design community. Time will tell.

bcsimac
Jun 28, 2003, 12:20 PM
It is nice to see that Quark finally shipped version 6, and that they finally made it compatible with Mac OS X. I think it was about time for Quark to at least make some sort of apology, and they did sort of. From what I hear though, Quark 6 is still a disappointment. I understand that it doesn't save files to any lower than v5. A lot of people skipped version 5 so this is not good. They should have made it so that it would save to as low as at least v3. I know a lot of my friends still use version 3.32 or 3.3 and a few use version 4. I hope Quark decides to update version 6 so that it can save to older file formats; but knowing Quark's attitude and personality, it probably won't happen and so I won't hold my breathe.

marlow
Jun 28, 2003, 06:56 PM
The purpose of quark is not design, it is layout and output. Yes you can call 'layout' as design, we all bill it in that way when we need to. The bottom line is that Quark offers control over printing, be it to a press via, PDF, film, DTR, laser or some sort of proofer. In a high output and or demanding workflow there is nothing one needs more than control. Printing presses are not all generic self calibrating things. Most of the operational presses today still rely on a pressman for most of the 'work'. ICC profiles and the like just don't match the control you have in Quark. If you print mostly to photo copiers, inkjet or down and dirty discount printers, it's simply garbage in garbage out. So have at it with 'Rage Maker' or Publisher. InDesign is valid for people who don't know printing very well, work in a closed loop system or can't afford Quark. I would bet that a good lot of the InDesign PDF's are still placed inside Quark prior to final output. Especially considering the over-all loss of output control faced when switching to OSX. Adobe, and most software/harware vendors, seem to be making it harder and harder for professional level control of color. That's not bad for the home user; heck I'd love to be able to toss something in the scanner and have it print on a press at 200% looking better than the original. I can do that on my Mother's system with the press of one button. (amazing) The truth is that is years away in the commercial printing world.
When inkjet web presses make it main stream at offset speeds, we'll see each signature customizable, more automatic 'eye pleasing' color control, and less need for Quark 3.x - 6. By then Quark should have version 8 out hopefully. ( I will admit, the slow to market time is a pain, but at least they have most of the 'kinks' out when they do a release.)
As for price... simple, the number of people who need Quark is few, mainly large companies. Most designer/computer builder/mechanic/web designer/ebay auctioneer/student/waiter's gleen the software from Gnutella or similar and undercut legitimate business'. That leaves the handfull of honest professional users to pay through the nose for the tools they need. I'm sure if 80% of the Quark or Photoshop users actually paid properly for the software as used, the prices would drop to a more reasonable level.
99% of computer users don't need Quark; kind of like most drivers don't need Nitrous injected engines. There will always, however, be people who think Quark sucks, because it lacks bells and whistles, just like people will be crying because they blew their engines.
Well that's my 2 cents and a small rant to boot.

e-coli
Jun 30, 2003, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by marlow
n a high output and or demanding workflow there is nothing one needs more than control.

That's been precisely the problem with Quark from day one. It's been so badly engineered, the individual doing the layout has very little control. I would argue that it's Quark that has control over the user instead of the other way around.

As for workflow, this is also a major issue with quark. How many times a day do you go from quark to illustrator, back to quark, to photoshop, back to quark...you get my point. It's outdated technology, and it creates more work for designers than need be. Designers are the ones that need time saving workflow, not the printers. A time comparison will show you that much more time is put into design that in printing.

It's funny. Usually when a new product ships, someone on these boards will post a review of it the following day. Especially regarding a product that has been "much anticipated" for 2+ years. No review here. That's a telling sign that the industry has moved on, and few people are buying Quark.

grouse
Jul 1, 2003, 04:06 AM
Stickin my neck out, and having never used InDesign for more than a quick demo which expired, I like quark. I like its typographic controls, its H and J's functions, its kerning pairs, the ability (right from v3) to input numbers in whatever units you like, and I love the little green man that trots on and zaps boxes!

As a designer interested in typography and information design, book covers and contents, I like it's leanness. I don't want extra bells and whistles, I just want it to handly type really well. Sure if I want to create a funky ligature, I'll skip into illustrator and play with the fonts in outline, but even with Quark running (pretty well) in Classic, hopping between Pshop and Illus isn't in any sense a chore, and I immediately know within the remit of each programme what they are supposed to do. Vector, pixel, page layout. I like them to stay in their pens, as it were, so that I they can concentrate on getting their own specialism improved, rather than the slightly distracting repurposing thing that Quark 6.0 is moving towards, I admit. I don't really see myself ever using quark for web design, I have Dreamweaver and Golive to do that!

Less of the Jack of all trades.

creativeczar
Jul 1, 2003, 07:20 AM
E-coli has a point. Is there anyone out there who has purchased Quark 6 and can provide a firsthand account of what it is like? Anyone?:(