Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Quark OS X - Testing

not true

you can pick indesing as a competitive upgrade for $129 or less, all youhave to do is give them proof that you own crap.. i mean quark.

I did it and now crap (quark is collecting dust as coaster and the box makes a handy door stop.;)
 
Purposely lame?

Keep in mind that most of the places relying on Quark do not have the luxury of downtime in terms of learning a new program (or even a radically redesigned QX6). If Quark was changed too much, money would be lost for a while.

I find ID2 to be unuseable (though I have sludged through in order to understand it) on a 450mHz G4 in terms of speed (Click, wait, click, wait), but if QX6 turns out to be a dog as well, then it won't make much sense to upgrade. QX4 in Classic is useable (with quirks) and far, far, FAAAARRRRR faster than ID2(even with crappy preview option). Sure it would be nice to get a new machine and run ID2, but like many businesses, the bean-counters have other ideas.


Quark is late, lame and laughable. They don't deserve the marketshare they have.
 
I did not have that problem

Sorry to hear that, but ID comes with most of the same keyboard comands as quark so there is little "downtime" learning the program. I have yet to open the manual on ID.

As far as been a dog I see no difference in the preformance of quark and ID they both behave the same, but ID takes the cake for been more user friendly than quark.

Small sample in quark:bring a graphic need to make a picture box then bring image then resize to fit box, in ID bring image resize done.
I think the benefits you get with ID outweights the need to use quark far more.

give ID a chance.
 
Too bad, too sad...too late

Unless Quark comes with a HUUUUUGE amount of new features and the application is a REAL OSX application... I don't see how they can make it.

Please see the excellent article by Scott Kelby (Mad Design magazine) about QuarkXPress... Very true and clever.

On the other hand having 2 products on the markets for Mac DTP is not bad but... Adobe has the lead now.


Michel
 
Re: Re: Too bad, too sad...too late

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Lead? In what way?

Like Apple has the lead over Microsoft?
A better product and 3% marketshare?
Click to expand...

I agree completely. All the "ding dong, the wicked witch is dead" stuff is quite premature. But most of the people who frequent and post on a site like this prefer the bleeding edge, and I bet that among us InDesign has a much higher marketshare.
 
dinosaurs....

True, Quark is not dead, but it's quickly going the way of the dinosaurs. If Quark doesn't offer an OSX version soon, alot of people will feel ripped off. My dad uses Quark everyday, but wants a new PowerMac. Too bad it doesn't boot up in OS9. He's pissed about it. Alot of people I talk to are. And the sad thing is if Quark 6 is released and there are major problems/printing issues/etc... there's going to be a backlash.

Think of it like the coming of the G5. Everyone was waiting for almost a year and a half. Holding out, waiting for that bad boy to appear. But low and behold, nothing. Now, I don't know about IBM 970, but if it sucks and we're getting crappy speeds out of it (hypothetically, because I know it'll be nice and fast!), there's going to be alot of angry mac users.

There will be nothing wrong with the existing products, but with a build up of expectation, the talk surrounding the new release, and the push from Adobe, the release of Quark 6 better revolutionize the layout industry. If it doesn't, Quark will just keep slipping on it's foothold.

I'd rather learn a new program today to be more productive tomorrow, than wait a year to feel comfortable about a productive program I already know.

Life's about learning, people! The more we experiment with new programs (InDesign in particular...), we either appreciate what we have or find an easier way to do something.
 
Re: Too bad, too sad...too late

Originally posted by mk_in_mke

Please see the excellent article by Scott Kelby (Mad Design magazine) about QuarkXPress... Very true and clever.
Click to expand...

And very much in the pocket of Adobe... he's practically their official spokesmonkey.
 
I don't know if Adobe InDesign has the lead now, but I certainly hope it is. DorkXpress has upset me over the years on many issues.

For one, most other graphics apps are from Adobe (Photoshop, Illustrator, etc) and CorkXpress in terms of interface has been consistently different (different keys for certain functions and etc), which can get very annoying.

Also PorkXpress is very limited in terms of functions as well, which became more obvious when InDesign came out.

And also JerkXpress had audacity to come out with their latest version which was for OS 9, when OS X was already available and everyother developers were scrambling to make their apps OS X compatible.

Far as I am concerned, they can shove SulkXpress where sun don't shine. InDesign can take its place.
 
Re: Cocoa or Carbon ?

Originally posted by dekator
Will Quark 6 be Cocoa or Carbon ?

This may be decisive. If it's Cocoa, it may well justifiy the time they needed and will give them a nice edge over Adobe once Apple starts selling non-PPCs too (which *will* happen).
Click to expand...

Take a guess, carbon crapola. Quark has to allow people to run the app in OS9, since they are the ones who got everyone stuck there to begin with. I'm sensing it will run like a retarded turtle. It'll probably be as good as it is in Classic Mode now. Not to say ID is any speed demon either. I can't wait till everything is full-on Cocoa, there is an obvious slowness and crapiness to these carbonised nightmares.
 
Re: Re: Cocoa or Carbon ?

Originally posted by tjwett
Take a guess, carbon crapola.
Click to expand...

QuarkXPress 6 System Requirements
Mac OS

* Mac OS X v10.2
* CD-ROM drive for installation
* Minimum 128MB total RAM
* 230MB available hard disk space for QuarkXPress installation
* TCP/IP network for site license (using Quark License Administrator)


-Looks like they're not supporting 9.
Perhaps it is a Cocoa rewrite...
 
Re: Re: Cocoa or Carbon ?

Originally posted by tjwett
Take a guess, carbon crapola. Quark has to allow people to run the app in OS9, since they are the ones who got everyone stuck there to begin with. I'm sensing it will run like a retarded turtle. It'll probably be as good as it is in Classic Mode now. Not to say ID is any speed demon either. I can't wait till everything is full-on Cocoa, there is an obvious slowness and crapiness to these carbonised nightmares.
Click to expand...

Who ever said that Cocoa is faster than Carbon?
Or that Carbon is slower that Cocoa?

Neither is true, and you will not find that information in any technical publication available about Mac OS X programming at Apple's web site.

Come on people, if you are not developers, then, at least, do some research. Do not listen to the rumors, or not-well-informed sources of pure speculation. Do you own research -- read the freaking manuals!

Carbon and Cocoa are the same sh*t, only with the difference that Cocoa has some added features, simply because it was there for 15 years already, as a part of NeXT Step. And nothing else.

But Apple is adding more to the Carbon APIs, to make it even better and feature rich. In due course of time, Carbon APIs might be even richer in their functionality than Cocoa APIs.

If there was not Carbon, Mac OS X would be dead, the first day it was rolled out.
 
tYNS, in relation to your post on page one about Quark only giving users the full resolution picture previews if they're registered, maybe that's got something to do with piracy, so that only registered users get that functionality.

I don't know if that's why it is or not, but I am speaking as someone who forked out AU$1750 in 1995 for Quark as a design student, when everyone around me was ripping it off the machines at university. I think software piracy is disgusting and no less a crime than stealing from a shop. It's also the reason that prices get hiked up and the rest of us have to pay top dollar.

Maybe I'm the only one here who things this, but I'm a Quark user who has tried InDesign and remains unconverted. I'd be a mug to not agree that Quark should have moved with the times on a number of key occasions (undos & OSX especially) but I'm staying with Quark. I found that many of the main key commands were not the same for ID (even when you set the preference to be so) and ID runs way too slow for publishing and design work, which ALWAYS needs to be done yesterday.

My two bobs. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Chuck.
http://www.madebydesign.net
 
Originally posted by Chuck
tYNS, in relation to your post on page one about Quark only giving users the full resolution picture previews if they're registered, maybe that's got something to do with piracy, so that only registered users get that functionality.

I don't know if that's why it is or not, but I am speaking as someone who forked out AU$1750 in 1995 for Quark as a design student, when everyone around me was ripping it off the machines at university.

Maybe I'm the only one here who things this, but I'm a Quark user who has tried InDesign and remains unconverted.
http://www.madebydesign.net
Click to expand...

Obviously. I agree totally that is what they have in mind. But it is ridiculos. Believe it or not, not everyone in the world has an internet connection. The fact that they force you to register to receive full functionality is a waste of time.

Don't get me wrong, I am a complete Quark User. I have been in the design field practically my whole life. We own a printshop wit a design division that has stuck by quark since version 3. some near 10 years ago. We continue to use Quark. However, we have also switched our company completely to OS X as well. With Quarks history of flawed software I am very worried about the amount of time they wasted not getting Quark to OS X.. not only has there been that delay, but the delay to work out the bugs is going to be even longer. Adobe hsa had InDesign ported over for quite sometime.. It has been picked as product of the year by many. Adobe has more than less been able to pull off minimal bugs in their software right off the bat. We do not fuly use Indesign, but we have received a free copy with the purchase of a PowerMac we made recently. I have poked around and have found it superior in text handling, pre-press, and overall design features. Indesign allow a lot more freedom and better integration than Quark does. To the fact that you can use PSD files directly without having to flatten and re-save as Tif/eps/etc... It has better integration with PDF to allow us to send e-mail proofs to customers quicker. In all I am finding Indesign to better aid our work flow and expand our creative department.

As far as your software piracy issue goes. I am glad that you are honest. It is too bad that there are thieves in this world. But there are. No matter what type of protection you put on a product, there will always be a way to steal it. Does this mean you should punish legitimate users like you and I for that? I am already annoyed by it..

Switching to Indesign will not be an over night thing.. I will definitely be purchasing it when it comes out because that is what the majority of our staff know. What i think Quark has to fear are the upcoming round of designers. They are the ones that will determine what we printing shops will be using in the near future. If I were a student again, believe me, I would probably be very intrigued by Indesign right now.

All it will take is for Quark to have a handful of Bugs in Quark 6 when it is released to upset the next crop of users. People will not be so patient this time.
 
Designer, once again!

Originally posted by Chuck

...
Maybe I'm the only one here who things this, but I'm a Quark user who has tried InDesign and remains unconverted. I'd be a mug to not agree that Quark should have moved with the times on a number of key occasions (undos & OSX especially) but I'm staying with Quark. I found that many of the main key commands were not the same for ID (even when you set the preference to be so) and ID runs way too slow for publishing and design work, which ALWAYS needs to be done yesterday.

My two bobs. Take 'em or leave 'em.

Chuck.
http://www.madebydesign.net
Click to expand...

Yes, for various reasons people do not want to move forward. If you are running an old Mac, Mac OS X ready InDesign 2 might be too slow. But I've found that InDesign 1.5 runs well even on first G4 PowerMacs. In fact, it runs smoothly.

But, however, I found InDesign to be more creative tool. With Quark I was not creative, because, for example, I could not go backwards and undo few of my design steps ... or to start and play with the layout and go backwards, and forward, again and again and ... I was frustrated.

With Quark I was a boody bloke from printing industry -- with InDesign, I am a designer once again. And I like that freedom!
 
Re: Re: Re: Cocoa or Carbon ?

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
QuarkXPress 6 System Requirements
Mac OS

* Mac OS X v10.2
* CD-ROM drive for installation
* Minimum 128MB total RAM
* 230MB available hard disk space for QuarkXPress installation
* TCP/IP network for site license (using Quark License Administrator)


-Looks like they're not supporting 9.
Perhaps it is a Cocoa rewrite...
Click to expand...

i stand corrected. i guess i just assumed since recent history has showed me that so many software publishers prefer to take the easy way out. the word adobe comes to mind...
 
Originally posted by tYNS
by the way, very nice website! You design very well with dreamweaver.

You don't seem to be using those wonderful new Web features built into quark though? ;)
Click to expand...

Would you believe... I'm still on Quark v3.31? No web features here.

Yes, it's the original version I bought in 1995 as a student. I've been freelancing for about a year now, after I was made redundant from an ad agency. I've had work coming out my ears ever since (well, one slow month). I've ordered a 17PB and will wait for Q6 before upgrading for obvious reasons.

Now you may have recoiled as you read what version of Quark I am using as a fulltime professional designer, but the fact is that there is no concept or idea I can't execute with Quark 3.31, (combined with Photoshop, Illustrator, a digital camera and scanner). Film bureaus have no problems with Q3.31 when I send them out for repro either. There are teething problems with new system software and new standards, but I'm fairly optimistic about sorting those out when Q6 emerges.

In regards to Nemesis' post, I think it's a shame to think that you can only feel like a real designer if you're working on InDesign. I don't mean anything personal, but just like a doctor can perform an excellent tracheotomy with only a ball point pen, I think designer's need not pin their identities or abilities on which tools they're using.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, just thinking out loud.

Chuck
http://www.madebydesign.net
 
Re: Cocoa or Carbon ?

Originally posted by dekator
Will Quark 6 be Cocoa or Carbon ?

This may be decisive. If it's Cocoa, it may well justifiy the time they needed and will give them a nice edge over Adobe once Apple starts selling non-PPCs too (which *will* happen).
Click to expand...

It's Carbon, but with Nibs, not resource files--just like MS Office. Carbon done this way can be very, very effective and fast. It's also more compatible with other systems because it can be done using C++ which programmers on other systems know.

Of course, this is Quirk, and they have apparently found many ways to mess it up, even though Apple have tried to help them speed things up.

Our community college had upgraded to version 5 and they've since then, they've gone mostly to Mac OS X. They'll probably be the first to upgrade, just to get away from Mac OS 9.
 
Originally posted by Chuck
Would you believe... I'm still on Quark v3.31? No web features here.

In regards to Nemesis' post, I think it's a shame to think that you can only feel like a real designer if you're working on InDesign. I don't mean anything personal, but just like a doctor can perform an excellent tracheotomy with only a ball point pen, I think designer's need not pin their identities or abilities on which tools they're using.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, just thinking out loud.

Chuck
http://www.madebydesign.net
Click to expand...

Not that, but rather different thing, Chuck.
I can make a five star website using MSWord 5.0 alone, or textedit, or Dreamweaver; Make a 700 pages spread book using Wordstar, or similar ... but I can also do it using InDesign.

I do not care, everything is fine to me. But I am just soundly observing benefits of modern, real world tools available there. InDesign is one of them, Dreamweaver too. Mac OS X as well ... and that makes me exciting!

Adobe, Macromedia, Apple, they give a damn! They listen to us, and they care about us and our needs!

But not Quark. I hate no QuarkXPress -- I hate Quark's business practice and the way they are treating us, designers, customers. They think we are idiots, that they should skim us all for a piece of outdated software forever. If it wasn't for Adobe, QuarkXPress would never change. And that's a shame and that's what I hate the most!

And yes, InDesign makes me fly again. It makes me observing new ways to deliver good design, same as Apple makes me happy by delivering extraordinary computers of both excellent usability, and of excellent product design.

And, of course, I'm not trying to offend anyone, just thinking out loud.
 
QuarkXPress 6 release date....

I had a purchasing agent I know do some checking on an unrealated matter to Quark, and also asked about QXP6-OSX. Here's a quote:

"...Version 6.0 will run on Mac OS X and the latest we have heard on a release date is May/June._ We don't have a more definite date than that and we won't have pricing for a while longer._"

This person who is quoted in a Channel Sales Rep.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back