PDA

View Full Version : QuarkXPress 6.1 Almost Here?


MacRumors
Dec 7, 2003, 01:56 PM
CreativeMac noted (http://www.creativemac.com/2003/11_nov/news/quark61031121.htm) in November that Quark was planning on introducing QuarkXpress 6.1 in the "near future". The update is said to have Panther support, performance enhancements, better Excel integration and font tools.

MacBidouille notes (http://www.hardmac.com/niouzcontenu.php?date=2003-12-07#1183) translates an account of 6.1 being demoed by Quark in Belgium. The report notes additional features, bug fixes, Panther compatibility and QuarkDDS (http://www.quark.com/products/quarkdds/).

mangoman
Dec 7, 2003, 02:04 PM
I don't mind saying it for the umpmteenth time: Good riddance, Quark. I'll be doin' mine in InDesign.

Freg3000
Dec 7, 2003, 02:24 PM
Funny....I was just reading this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50141).....

So does Panther compatibility mean basic support, or further enhacements to it? I haven't heard of any reports of Quark not working in 10.3.

ITR 81
Dec 7, 2003, 02:25 PM
Most places still use Quark and probably will still use it until they stop making it.

mangoman
Dec 7, 2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by ITR 81
Most places still use Quark and probably will still use it until they stop making it.

At this stage in the publishing game, we can officially refer to them as 'suckers'.

macnews
Dec 7, 2003, 02:32 PM
Amen. Good-bye Quark. It isn't that Indesign is so much better in terms of features, it just is better at running in OS X (you think Quark could have done a better job since it took them so long to move to OS X), has better customer support, easier install, no draconian copyright protections (sorry, the hardware config requirement reminds me of AutoCad or CadKey back in the mid 90's), is cheaper (esp. when buying Illustrator & Photoshop in bulk licenses) and creates better PDF's which opens up the number of Printers I can use (I'm talking professional presses since they now don't care what program created the files w/pdf's).

Indesign has changed the way I look at providing files - something Quark never did. From a "need" point of view, I don't need Quark to go out of business so a printer will switch to Indesign thus allowing me to use their press. I would like Quark to lose it's position as #1 for all the years of rotton attitudes and "it's got to be something you are doing" answers for problems with their software.

rog
Dec 7, 2003, 02:36 PM
Yes, but in order to download it you have to pay $14,000 and then Quark representatives call you daily for a week and tell you where to go.

MacsRgr8
Dec 7, 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by mangoman
At this stage in the publishing game, we can officially refer to them as 'suckers'.

He he....
Sometimes u r forced to work with it. As some publishers refuse InDesign still, so it is possible u must keep Quark.

dfbills
Dec 7, 2003, 03:36 PM
6.1 appears on this page:

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

but the page is missing

MacsRgr8
Dec 7, 2003, 03:47 PM
Ha ha....

Typical.

Good find.

TomSmithMacEd
Dec 7, 2003, 04:21 PM
What is Quark?! I've never knowen what it is.

mvc
Dec 7, 2003, 04:26 PM
This groundswell of user opinion about Quark is quite amusing, especially if you have been in the game long enough to remember when Pagemaker was King and suddenly Quark showed up with a better feature set and user model - how we all mocked Pagemaker as we switched to Quark back in '93 or thereabouts.

What goes round comes round they say, and Adobe learnt their lesson after years of humiliation playing second fiddle with 'Pagebreaker'.

Indesign was created to:

A). Match or exceed Quark's capabilites and ease of use feature for feature, without having to be locked into an outdated user model.

B). Pay close attention to legitimate user feature requests that Quark had been studiously ignoring for over 5 years.

C). Leverage Adobes depth of understanding (and dominance) of the entire prepress process, and thus simplify the whole experience for users. Quark could never achieve this, they are a technological island.

Quark has lost its way because of YEARS of arrogance, and I predict by 2005 THEY will be in the same boat as Pagemaker was.

MacDuff
Dec 7, 2003, 04:43 PM
Is Quark still the standard like some of you say? I learned Quark a few years ago when it completely the standard, but I'm really curious if still is. I'm hearing different things from you guys. Indeed the people at Quark are completely arrogant and they don't have the customer support that Adobe does.

But there's got to be some survey/statistic that reveals what is being used the most at firms and compainies.

MacsRgr8
Dec 7, 2003, 04:51 PM
Standard or not....

To be honest I don't like it when ONE brand/company/product is "set" as a standard.
Like saying Windows is standard for operating systems. Sure, we know it is most used, or "likely to be used", but it is not a standard.
InDesign should not be a standard, as XPress shouldn't. They should both be there to ensure competiton. But both should be supported. If you send your DTP project to a publisher, it shouldn't matter which OS or DTP software you use.

Just my 0.02

medea
Dec 7, 2003, 04:54 PM
I believe this may turn out to be a case of "too little, too late." So many users/companies have made the switch to indesign so they could os x, and that is a lot of money to spend, they are of course people who still have not made the switch to x because they have been holding out for Xpress, how many people like that are left I am not sure of though.

edenwaith
Dec 7, 2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by mvc
This groundswell of user opinion about Quark is quite amusing, especially if you have been in the game long enough to remember when Pagemaker was King and suddenly Quark showed up with a better feature set and user model - how we all mocked Pagemaker as we switched to Quark back in '93 or thereabouts.

What goes round comes round they say, and Adobe learnt their lesson after years of humiliation playing second fiddle with 'Pagebreaker'.

Indesign was created to:

A). Match or exceed Quark's capabilites and ease of use feature for feature, without having to be locked into an outdated user model.

B). Pay close attention to legitimate user feature requests that Quark had been studiously ignoring for over 5 years.

C). Leverage Adobes depth of understanding (and dominance) of the entire prepress process, and thus simplify the whole experience for users. Quark could never achieve this, they are a technological island.

Quark has lost its way because of YEARS of arrogance, and I predict by 2005 THEY will be in the same boat as Pagemaker was.

My experience with page layout programs lies with Aldus Pagemaker (yes, back when it was Aldus, and not Adobe), and I don't have much experience with Quark XPress or InDesign. I downloaded demos for both XPress 5 and 6 and InDesign. XPress 5 felt somewhat dated and awkward. When I would right-click on some features (such as text, or a box, etc.) I would expect certain features to appear (Font, Style, etc.). I was hoping that XPress 6 would bring a certain amount of Mac-ness to its interface. Nope. XPress 6 still felt like 5, except it was OS X native finally. However, when I tried InDesign, it embraced more of the OS X interface which made it feel more natural to me. In the end, if I was to choose a program for page layout, I would probably select InDesign.

bensisko
Dec 7, 2003, 05:25 PM
It depends on what you mean by "most people still use Quark..."

If you mean the Quark filetype, then yes, most people do use Quark.... EXCEPT MOST people use InDesign to create Quark Files.

Quark has lost more than 50% of the market. Quark's main audiance are people who absolutely refuse to switch (and are probably still useing OS 9...), and the backend printers for which InDesign still hasn't caught up with....yet.

It's pretty much that Designers and those involved with layout and such are using InDesign, and those who do the actual printing are using Quark. It will be soon that Quark goes the way of OS 9, dead in a coffin on the Adobe InDesign stage.

So long Quark. It was fun while it lasted... Wait a minute, no it wasn't!

kenyabob
Dec 7, 2003, 05:26 PM
So does Quark 6 work in panther?

~Shard~
Dec 7, 2003, 06:27 PM
Quark sucks. Sorry for not putting much more effort into the post, but there isn't much more to say, and Quark isn't worth it. Bash me if you will, but I don't think I'm alone here... :cool:

Armsreach
Dec 7, 2003, 06:32 PM
Though I am a devout InDesign user, the nature of being a graphic designer is that there are times that you have to use Quark. I own Quark 6 and there are features I wish that InDesign would implement, however, there are a few major problems that I hope this update will address...

A) Shoddy type support. In a few different studios, Quark has been ignoring printer fonts for some standard post script fonts such as Univers and Garamond. The only solution for us was to create outlines. Not a very efficient way of doing things.

B) I've sent a few files that were two color jobs to print and recieved film back for full cmyk plus my two spot colors. The first time I figured that I just screwed up my images. The second time I made the printer check (that's an expensive error). Everything was set for only the two spots, however, Quark was converting the images to CMYK and outputting film for them (they were duotoned images).

These are two basic things that should have worked with this version, especially since Quark 6 didn't offer much in the way of innovation.

While InDesign itself has a few major flaws itself, I think it is a far superior program and hopefully there will be a much stronger sway in the market since it is so cost effectively bundled with photoshop and illustrator. I don't want it to take over the market, but a market that sees 60/40 share between the two programs in either direction will ultimately be the best for those of us using the programs.

(sorry to get a bit off topic, but it's inevitable when talking about Quark).

bensisko
Dec 7, 2003, 07:51 PM
To those who want to see an equal market: Shouldn't the product be worthy though? I think that alot of people agree that Quark sucks and doesn't hold a match stick (let alone a torch) to InDesign, and I don't think that a product (Indesign) should be kept from market dominance just for the sole purpose of keeping Adobe on their toes.

The big problem in keeping Quark around is that, as long as Quark is still being made, Quark filetype will still be standard.

Personally, I think that the industry should come up with a seperate filetype that nobody can claim as their own and will be standard.

As soon as Quark dies, we can all get on with our lives. Yes compitition is good, but it should be WORTHY competition.

ITR 81
Dec 7, 2003, 08:10 PM
3 Universities which just ordered some G5's from Apple have actually asked for Quark to be installed because they still do not trust to use Indesign and most of their connected businesses do not use Indesign. My friend just got job as graphic designer and he could've not got 85k job if he didn't know Quark.

If you want a good paying job you have to know how to use Quark because most businesses in the world still use it.

cthorp
Dec 7, 2003, 08:29 PM
I Design and produce print collateral. I have done so since 1990. I have switched to In-Design. The argument that printers don't support In Design is a joke. I just ran a job with Qubecor World and all they wanted was PDF's. A lot of printers now just want PDFs and Qurk is lame at producing them.

cthorp
Dec 7, 2003, 08:36 PM
Universities are ussually cluless when it comes to design. AND anyone making 85K in design is hired for their mind not their hand. If you have an 85K porfolio they can work around a preference between Quark and In Design. Also if you have the experience to get an 85K job you were probably working when Quark was it. Anyone with the ability to pull in 85K must be able to present a convincing argument for a concept so they should have no problem making an argument for using In Design.

mangoman
Dec 7, 2003, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by cthorp
Universities are ussually cluless when it comes to design. AND anyone making 85K in design is hired for their mind not their hand. If you have an 85K porfolio they can work around a preference between Quark and In Design. Also if you have the experience to get an 85K job you were probably working when Quark was it. Anyone with the ability to pull in 85K must be able to present a convincing argument for a concept so they should have no problem making an argument for using In Design.

Agreed all around.

beatle888
Dec 7, 2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by cthorp
Universities are ussually cluless when it comes to design. AND anyone making 85K in design is hired for their mind not their hand. If you have an 85K porfolio they can work around a preference between Quark and In Design. Also if you have the experience to get an 85K job you were probably working when Quark was it. Anyone with the ability to pull in 85K must be able to present a convincing argument for a concept so they should have no problem making an argument for using In Design.

Thats correct. I'd rather keep the art and creative directors away from the computer period.

machan
Dec 7, 2003, 09:50 PM
from a designer's perspective, i like indesign because it's very fluid, intuitive and has many more modern features available.

from a prepress manager's perspective, i only have one customer that uses indesign and they send me pdfs because it's easy. i've just upgraded to quark 6 and so far, beyond a couple little hiccups, it's working great. there are things i think are sorely lacking in quark, but because about 90% of the jobs we do are created in quark i have to use it. i'm happy enough to use it daily because a prepress environment runs smoother when things are simpler. quark does less fancy stuff so it's easier to deal with when things don't go right. i'm sure indesign files work great at other prepress dept's, but we had trouble with them (again, from the one customer we have who uses it), so we had them send pdfs instead, which has worked fairly well.

in specific regard to armsreach's post about problems with spot colors in quark, here's a little info i picked up this week when we had a problem with a quark 6 file that may or may not be relevent: when EPS files are saved out of quark 6 and sent to a RIP, duotone or fake duotones need to be saved out using the deviceN color setting. the default setting is CMYK, but deviceN is the one that recognizes spot and multi-color info. doublecheck with your printer to see if this has anything to do with the problem you had.

Belly-laughs
Dec 7, 2003, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by ~Shard~
Quark sucks. Sorry for not putting much more effort into the post, but there isn't much more to say, and Quark isn't worth it. Bash me if you will, but I don't think I'm alone here... :cool:

Im with you. Amen!

Sunrunner
Dec 8, 2003, 01:14 AM
I think I speak for many people both inside and outside the Graphics Design world when I say that Quark lost my support when it took them sooooo long to get into OS X in the first place. The company seems to have their priorities all wrong, and their user base is withering because of it. Not only that, but their product, in my opinion, is not the start player it once was--just an almost mediocre piece of media software. Quark had better get back on the ball before they loose their shirts...

scan300
Dec 8, 2003, 04:22 AM
Regardless that I would rather use Indesign than Quark, I couldn't convince my staff to switch. I'm stuck with Quark and it's major problem for me is that features break on a multi-user system. Particularly the pdf import and export options.

They run fine on the machine's administrator account but every other login, despite having admin privileges , the print, eps and pdf features won't work. They cause the app to crash, don't remember settings or just don't do anything.

Indesign has been flawless since I moved to OSX.

I just hope that 6.1 fixes these problems, and we don't have to shell out for it. I'm not happy in my new role as a 'Quark piss-farter'.

We have a heavy investment in Quark, as many would, and I just don't see how I could get a refund from them when I can't even get a straight answer.

Patrick Thistle
Dec 8, 2003, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by bensisko
It depends on what you mean by "most people still use Quark..."

If you mean the Quark filetype, then yes, most people do use Quark.... EXCEPT MOST people use InDesign to create Quark Files.


Can you save an InDesign doc as a .qxd?
We've just made the move to Quark 6, and frankly are NOT impressed... We had an evaluation copy of InDesign (15 I think) but didn't go down that road due to our main printers inertia. Maybe with 98% of our studio now on OSX its time to look again!

Belly-laughs
Dec 8, 2003, 05:28 AM
I still have to do certain work in Quark 4.1, especially when clients need .qxd document templates back, but even then I do the designwork in InDesign (better on-screen rendering) first and copy the pages into Quark for finishing.

To save me the hassle, Im thinking of buying my clients a copy of InDesign for Christmas.

Photorun
Dec 8, 2003, 08:06 AM
Quark was the best and there was a time I'd swear by it, now I just swear at it, er, actually I don't swear at it anymore, I officially migrated to InDesign a couple years ago. And for those who don't know, ID imports Quark files almost flawlessly, in some cases without need for a single tweak, it's so beautiful it could make you cry. I don't even load Quark on my machines anymore, no need. Bye Quark, please go away.

rfenik
Dec 8, 2003, 08:07 AM
InDesign opens Quark files - so WHY would you use Quark for anything????

Quark isn't bad - I use Quark 4 here and then.... but it's just that InDesign is SO MUCH BETTER!!!

I love how InDesign CS has all the Distiller functions built in. I can output to a PDFx1a to send to a printer quicker than it takes to print something! It's awesome. No more outputting to postscript and distilling! It's almost TOO easy.

jayscheuerle
Dec 8, 2003, 08:18 AM
I love how any Quark topic brings out the InDesign zealots, even though their input is irrelevant to the questions usually asked. ID2 is a fine program, but it doesn't have the market saturation that its fans believe. People that are relatively new to the design field or still in school are the most likely to embrace it because it's easier all around when you're just starting out. You don't have years of invested experience and legacy files or printing contacts that you know what to expect from.

I use ID2 whenever I can (which isn't often enough), but Quark 6.1 can only be considered a good thing and I'm amazed they're getting an update out so quickly (for them).

machan
Dec 8, 2003, 08:24 AM
I thought Indesign only can import Quark 4 files now...since versions 5 and 6 came out, Quark changed their files so they are not translatable to foil this feature. Is that right?

cthorp
Dec 8, 2003, 08:35 AM
13 years of experience has taught me one thing. Money talks! A $400 dollar piece of software is not going to stand in the way of any printer if you buy enough printing. They really do want your business.

I do not need market saturation. I just need In Design and a couple of Printers. If I cared about market saturation I would use a PC.

edenwaith
Dec 8, 2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by rfenik

I love how InDesign CS has all the Distiller functions built in. I can output to a PDFx1a to send to a printer quicker than it takes to print something! It's awesome. No more outputting to postscript and distilling! It's almost TOO easy.

Slightly off topic, but...what is the difference between ID 2 and ID CS? Or is the whole 'CS' scheme just some marketing ploy with very little being to the actual products. I recently read about product version schemes, and it seems that companies are moving away from the semi-logical method of major.minor.patch release scheme and going towards other names (Windows 2000/XP, InDesign CS, Mac OS X Panther).

Despite not being a XPress or InDesign zealot (or even user), I do think that an update is a good thing. At least better than just letting the program sit around and do nothing until the next major upgrade.

Jeff Harrell
Dec 8, 2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by edenwaith
Slightly off topic, but...what is the difference between ID 2 and ID CS?

InDesign CS can also be referred to as InDesign 3. It's a big upgrade. As for what the specific list of features is, I'm not certain, but the one I use most is the story editor.

Or is the whole 'CS' scheme just some marketing ploy with very little being to the actual products.

What Adobe sells as the Creative Studio can be thought of as a bundle including InDesign 3, Photoshop 8, and Illustrator 11. All three are significant upgrades over the previous versions.

jayscheuerle
Dec 8, 2003, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by Jeff Harrell
InDesign CS can also be referred to as InDesign 3. It's a big upgrade. As for what the specific list of features is, I'm not certain, but the one I use most is the story editor.


Is it significantly faster?

I've found both InDesign2 and Illustrator10 to be painfully slow in terms of redraws, renaming layers, etc..

tychay
Dec 8, 2003, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by mvc
This groundswell of user opinion about Quark is quite amusing, especially if you have been in the game long enough to remember when Pagemaker was King and suddenly Quark showed up with a better feature set and user model - how we all mocked Pagemaker as we switched to Quark back in '93 or thereabouts.

Are you sure about this date? I'm not in publishing, but I used PageMaker (back before Aldus got bought up by Adobe and had to sell off Freehand) and I recollect Quark taking the world by storm in '89-90, not '93. By '93, I'd say XPress was nearly unassailable and was already starting to build a reputation of being a bunch of jerks through a rather long serious of strange copy protection and onerous upgrade pricing.

I question whether PageMaker was ever really "king". There was always LaTeX and FrameMaker (made by Frame before they got bought up by Adobe) for books, there was Letrastudio/ReadySetGo, there were a number of others whose name escapes me.

But Xpress was great because it had those XTensions. An idea from Photoshop by way of SuperPaint. It created a "platform" even though the cost was onerous (XPress has always been about 3x more expensive than PageMaker).

BTW, I agree with the "years of arrogance" quote. Quark is so arrogant they think they can just hire a bunch of programmers in India(*) to magically create a Mac OS X version of it, while at the same time their CEO is going around advising people to switch to Windows. From the sort of messages I see from their programmers on the forums, no wonder it took so long to come out and was a pile of crap.

(*) No offense meant to programmers in India--just these ones in particular. Perhaps that's not even fair. I don't know the situation and I think even the best programmers would have trouble when there is no institutional memory left of the product's development and they are working on an unfamiliar platform.

mvc
Dec 8, 2003, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by tychay
Are you sure about this date? I'm not in publishing, but I used PageMaker (back before Aldus got bought up by Adobe and had to sell off Freehand) and I recollect Quark taking the world by storm in '89-90, not '93. By '93, I'd say XPress was nearly unassailable and was already starting to build a reputation of being a bunch of jerks through a rather long serious of strange copy protection and onerous upgrade pricing.

Hmm, might have been 92 at our end of the globe, the shop i was working in was using FrameMaker for books and Pagebreaker for mailers etc. And we loved Quark because you could put things IN boxes rather than draw boxes over the top (duh).

But from Quark 3.1 on its been downhill all the way.

I suspect Quark will now play the "protect your legacy data" card rather than try to outcompete Adobe, they know they have dropped the ball, so its damage control time.

They already charge the earth so they will have no qualms about producing lots of paid upgrades with high prices and minimal new features for the next 3 years to try and lock in (and ream out) the print & prepress shops who have the main vested interest in Quark files and the money to keep buying it.

That way they can also keep ahead of inDesign by making each new file format incompatible, forcing 'trapped' Quark users to upgrade and making inDesign's uptake that much slower. (Win! Win!)

Meanwhile their overall marketshare will slip massively but their profits vs r&d will soar. They will be able to contract and maintain profitably on the strength of the bl**dy "network effect"!

Then one day in 2007 they will suddenly disappear/be aquired by CorelDraw (same thing).

I do not believe they will come back from this current state of affairs. But maybe I have to let go of the hate! :p

bousozoku
Dec 8, 2003, 11:00 PM
I think XPress arrived in 1989, not long after Color QuickDraw and Adobe Illustrator.

It's sad that Quark came out with something so good way back then and didn't fund real, ongoing development of it.

There were so many others. I saw where Ready Set Go! was recently updated. Maybe Corel would be interested in bringing Ventura Publisher back to Mac. I wish Calamus SL had made the jump from the Atari ST line.

Does anyone else wonder that, if everyone jumps to InDesign, Adobe will slow innovation without competition?

tYNS
Dec 9, 2003, 09:25 AM
I still use Quark. I am trying desparately to switch to Indesign with newer documents that I construct. Indesign is a nicer piece of software that feel a little more open to creativity. Quark definitely feels dated, but what rremains are the 100's of documents I have created in Quark. I simply need to have Quark to be able to properly edit or change these documents.

What i have noticed though is that Quark 5 runs faster in classic mode than Quark 6 does in OS X native mode. Anyone experience this as well?

We purchased Quark 6 when it was first introduced. Above and beyond spending 4 days trying to get the software registered to work (quarks server would refuse connections), we have not touched the product.

You have to love when software vendors punish the legitimate users with nagging registration setups ... Grrr..

How annoying. We have also had to move the software to another machine.. Meaning it took another 3 days to de-register the software from that one machine.

jayscheuerle
Dec 9, 2003, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by tYNS
What i have noticed though is that Quark 5 runs faster in classic mode than Quark 6 does in OS X native mode. Anyone experience this as well?


Yep. But that's not a Quark exclusivity. The same can be said for Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.

I get the feeling that OSX is a better juggler than a sprinter...

tYNS
Dec 9, 2003, 09:46 AM
Right.. I agree.

However, it is still nice not having to reset all the time when an app actually does crash. And the billion other features and improvements OS X has over OS 9 makes it all worth it.



Originally posted by jayscheuerle
I get the feeling that OSX is a better juggler than a sprinter...

bousozoku
Dec 9, 2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Yep. But that's not a Quark exclusivity. The same can be said for Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign.

I get the feeling that OSX is a better juggler than a sprinter...

Mac OS X can be both with well-written applications, which has nothing to do with what most of the graphics industry is giving us. If they were all following Carbon events and using .Nib files, it's likely they would improve by more than double without any other code enhancements.

Right now, it seems that they're all too worried about keeping really old code going without change to maximise their profits.

zimen
Dec 9, 2003, 02:35 PM
I am a small publisher in Italy. We run a lifestyle magazine and before that we did layout for others.

We still run on OS9. That's because we still don't have time to upgrade all computers. We will do it at our next comp purchase wich will be as soon as 2nd gen G5's come out.

We used to work on quark xpress. We loved it's simplicity. One day we installed indesign on one computer, just to try.

Today, we all use indesign. We print 30.000 copies every month and are 148/180 pages offset color printing. our printer gets pdf's from us and with indesign it's just faster and easier. Also, i'ts user friendly with photoshop and illustrator.

There's just no competition. the only thing we find MUCH better in xpress if speed during use. fast rendering. As for the rest, even if a completely new xpress 7 comes out, with adobes features, we will hang with indesign. it's here, and it's just good.

I'm sorry but for me Xpress is dead. Sad but true.


Simon

mvc
Dec 9, 2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
Right now, it seems that they're all too worried about keeping really old code going without change to maximise their profits.

I fully agree, and its not just Adobe, all the Macromedia MX series are slugs compared to their older versions (I haven't tried the very latest versions).

I had assumed this was because they are carbon apps rather than cocoa. Or is it Jaguars menus etc (I haven't got Panther yet)

Anyone able to confirm this?

narco
Dec 9, 2003, 07:29 PM
I've worked with a wide variety of printers in Los Angeles. Most use Quark, some use InDesign, but when submitting final documents, all require a simple PDF file. It doesn't really matter how you make it so long as it's set up according to the printer's request.

I've been using Quark for 8 years, I'm used to it. Some community colleges refuse to teach it because it's so expensive. The choice is really up to the consumer.

bensisko
Dec 9, 2003, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
Does anyone else wonder that, if everyone jumps to InDesign, Adobe will slow innovation without competition?

Not at all. Photoshop has been continously improved and has no real competition in the market. I would even dare to say that Photoshop probably has a Microsoftian market share.

Adobe is the rightful heir to the publishing market, and InDeisgn is the vehicle that will bring them back. Adobe is print, Apple is video, and Macromedia is web. It's a holy trinity sort of thing (the exception is Photoshop, where no matter what you're doing, you are probably using Photoshop for something).

bousozoku
Dec 9, 2003, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by mvc
I fully agree, and its not just Adobe, all the Macromedia MX series are slugs compared to their older versions (I haven't tried the very latest versions).

I had assumed this was because they are carbon apps rather than cocoa. Or is it Jaguars menus etc (I haven't got Panther yet)

Anyone able to confirm this?

I said "most of the graphics industry" :D Studio MX 2004 is horribly slow.

It has nothing to do with Carbon or Cocoa, specifically. It has to do with taking a System 6 or System 7-compatible application and doing the minimum to make it work as a native application.

As a developer, it really makes me angry that these things pass as native. Properly written Carbon is as fast as Cocoa. It takes more re-work than most of these companies want to spend. Considering the price of an upgrade, you'd think we'd bought the re-work. As I started to use the latest Dreamweaver, I thought that there must be some mistake. Someone must have forgotten to do something.

Weren't we upset like this when the PowerMac series had just arrived or when System 7 arrived? :D

Transitions are hell.

mvc
Dec 10, 2003, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by bousozoku
I said "most of the graphics industry" :D Studio MX 2004 is horribly slow.

It has nothing to do with Carbon or Cocoa, specifically. It has to do with taking a System 6 or System 7-compatible application and doing the minimum to make it work as a native application.

Weren't we upset like this when the PowerMac series had just arrived or when System 7 arrived? :D

Transitions are hell.

Ahh, thats a pain, so its no better than the previous version of MX for speed?

IIRC in the dim past newer software generally ran slower but at least compensated with many more useful features.

But I can't cope with the idea that Photoshop 5.5 running in Classic (an emulator, for heavens sake!), is actually faster than Photoshop 7 on my system. (512mb, Dual 450, Jaguar).

Seems immoral that they want so much more money to give so much less in terms of the basics. These software houses are simply depending on faster processors to do their "optimisation" for them! Damn you Adobe - refactor that sucka!

bousozoku
Dec 10, 2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by mvc
Ahh, thats a pain, so its no better than the previous version of MX for speed?
...


I never ran Dreamweaver MX on my dual 800, but MX 2004 seems slower on mine than MX on the dual 533 I was using at school with an early release of 10.2.

FireWorks, on the other hand, seems quite speedy but then xRes and PhotoStyler were too and good genetics help.

Thalcor
Dec 10, 2003, 05:12 PM
Can anyone suggest a good place for QuarkXPress user discussion? I have looked high and low for a decent QuarkXPress user forum, but have come up empty so far. Unfortunately, most forums have devolved into a flame war among its members or is filled with nothing but "Use InDesign".

I provide support for 41 newspapers, and while some are moving to InDesign, some still choose to stick with Quark. Those users who stay with Quark are doing so for one reason: They don't want to learn anything else. My markets who use InDesign typically are much happier with their software than the Quark 6 users, and I am trying to steer them toward InDesign. Regardless, I still need to support this software, and doing so has proven to be quite a challenge.

So, I ask you, dear readers, have you found any good spots on the Web to discuss Quark 6 problems? I have several problems that need to be addressed, and I'm hoping others have found solutions. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards, and thanks in advance!

Douglas _Allan
Dec 16, 2003, 05:57 PM
OK... Here goes.

I had to reactivate our copy of Quark 6 because we just got a G5 dual 1.8 in and wanted to try it on a faster machine. Well the first install was already wacked because of more RAM and switching to Panther.

So after reading a serial # and valdation code and activation code and then getting a 50 digit activation key read back to me (no I'm not making this up). It occured to me. Maybe sending all the customer support and tech support over seas was a bad idea.

Oh yeah, this is after I already e-mail a PDF per their request with no response for 24 hours.

Reading those damn long numbers is hard enough, then you throw into the mix a crappy connection half way around the world and english as a second language.

This is tough. I can't image if we had a real deadline and Quark decides it doesn't like an Apple patch or something.

What do you do wait for Quark to open the next day. This is not customer service. This is bogus.

Maybe they should have just done a hardware dongel and saved everyone a lot of trouble. Then you could take the dongel with you and use it on a laptop.