Doesn't that just suck. And the worst part is keeping all the back versions because customers are too cheap to upgrade. We still have people sending us Quark 3.32powermac666 said:Won't make any difference to me. As a commercial prepress manageer, I have to support both Quark XPress and Adobe InDesign, and that means I've already upgraded to v6.5 (and am glumly awaiting the release of CS2 to spend even more money).
It's weird, I think Quark5 is one of the long lost mysteries of the world. Either people are using Quark4.1, or Quark6 -- never 5.emw said:Doesn't that just suck. And the worst part is keeping all the back versions because customers are too cheap to upgrade. We still have people sending us Quark 3.32
As for the price drop - maybe it will help to push some of these slackers to move one.
I don't think it was lost - it was thrown away. Quark 5 was the product that never should have been... Not really any better than 4, but still not OS X.narco said:It's weird, I think Quark5 is one of the long lost mysteries of the world. Either people are using Quark4.1, or Quark6 -- never 5.
Yeah, I've been playing with the idea of using InDesign only. I design magazines (ads, layouts, etc.) and have been slowly doing all the ads in Illustrator/Photoshop, then importing them into the magazine template. As of now, all of the ads are converted and the only thing I actually USE Quark for is to lay the text out and convert to PDF.Paul O'Keefe said:We've kicked Xpress to the curb in our office. The Adobe environment works for us, seems better, and it it's a whole lot cheaper to get the CS bundle than Xpress.
I wanted to upgrade, but my boss was too cheap at the time. Now, when I accept ads from agencies, most of them use Quark 4.1. I don't think I have ever received a file made in Quark 5. I just thought it was kind of weird, but never really paid too much attention to it.Blue Velvet said:We used ver 5 from the minute it was released...
I hope I am misreading your post, because it sounds like you're frustrated with my upgrading history.TwitchOSX said:I just dont understand some people's perception of upgrading. Its so much more effecient overall to upgrade to the newer technologies. It shouldnt take anybody years to upgrade to OSX. AND, I wouldnt trust Quark's ability to output to PDF on a broke dead dog.
As for Quark 5, we used it. When I first started working here 2 and a half years ago, they were using Quark 4.1. I had never used a page layout app before and thats what they taught me on. I urged them to get Quark 5 (my ignorance on the application itself) and they got it. No different than 4.1 IMO. Then we got 6 later. But, shortly after learning Xpress, I heard about InDesign somewhere and d/l the trial. I really liked it and so I urged them to get it. We got that awesome Pagemaker --> InDesign upgrade and I havent looked back since. I create NOTHING new in Xpress. Only when I HAVE to due to older files, do I use Xpress.
Wow, so that's how the other half lives....narco said:edit...As I said before, since 95% of the printers I work with only accept PDF files, it doesn't really matter what I use.
I agree. I do research, quite a bit -- enough to not upgrade for months after the release. I was even afraid of buying my dual 2.0ghz G5 because it didn't come with OS 9, therefore couldn't use Quark4.1. That's when I upgraded to 6.TwitchOSX said:I MAKE time to research and implement upgrades. No point in my employers keeping me as an employee if I cant do that. If I didnt do that, and was content with how they ran things when I first started working here 2 years ago, we would still be using a G4 450, with Photoshop 5 and Quark 4.1. As it is, I said to hell with this, made them upgrade to OSX, made them buy the Creative Suite, and finally made them buy a DP 2.5ghz G5. Gotta stay current.
Because when you have an established workflow, a tweaked & temperamental RIP, a studio with 3 experienced designers who are Quark demons, about 7 years worth of archived work & templates, very little time to undertake training, a production schedule that has about 150 projects booked in before Xmas... well, then what's a few hundred dollars/pounds on some software?mrsebastian said:why pay more money for quark (?)
Not incredibly scientific, but a quick scan of our 332 jobs-in-process shows 211 Quark files received versus 15 InDesign files. That's 63.5% to 4.5%.Blue Velvet said:Because when you have an established workflow, a tweaked & temperamental RIP, a studio with 3 experienced designers who are Quark demons, about 7 years worth of archived work & templates, very little time to undertake training, a production schedule that has about 150 projects booked in before Xmas... well, then what's a few hundred dollars/pounds on some software?
A transition to InDesign for our setup is something that cannot be done on a whim. I would like to leave Quark behind but the effort involved is not something to be undertaken lightly... this is Quark's trump card.
I seriously doubt that InDesign has 50% market-share as an earlier poster mentioned, probably more like 15-30% tops, less so in the UK but there's no denying who has the momentum.
Yeah, I've talked to some of the printers and asked if they wanted files in any other format, most of the time they tell me "it's too much of a hassle."powermac666 said:Wow, so that's how the other half lives....
We only get about 5% of our files as PDF. We accept any file you got, and I mean ANYTHING. Word, Excel, Publisher, Powerpoint, Wordperfect. Heck, we had a client send us a Broderbund Print Shop Deluxe file once (OK, we re-created that one ).
I wouldn't ever look to upgrade an application unless I needed a specific feature, personally. But some designer somewhere is going to buy CS2, and they are going to expect that their printer is somehow expert with an application the day it is released. We have 20 Macs and 4 PCs in our prep department and 10 operators to train, so every new release is a couple of grand down the hole. No wonder the company Pres. call us SS PrePress.