QuarkXPress 6 available to order

[Rustus Maximus]

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]

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]

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!

 

[JBracy]

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]

sounds like they're starting to listen...

http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyarchives.asp?ArticleID=42544

 

[Rustus Maximus]

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

RE: areyouwishing

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.

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!

 

[mangoman]

SO... which one are YOU?

 

[areyouwishing]

Re: RE: areyouwishing

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.

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]

Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

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.... It's only a f*****g program, why can't we all be friends?

 

[areyouwishing]

Re: Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

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.

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

 

[zarathustra]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

Originally posted by areyouwishing
Drinking eh? We can definately be friends. Cheers to the Graphic Designers that like to bicker about programs!

Well, let's drink to that!

 

[Moxiemike]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

Originally posted by zarathustra
Well, let's drink to that!

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

 

[JBracy]

Re: Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

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!!!

give me a break.

 

[JBracy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: areyouwishing

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!!!

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]

You mean you can't do this in InDesign?

Funny i did....

 

[JBracy]

Originally posted by zarathustra
You mean you can't do this in InDesign?

Funny i did....

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]

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]

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)

 

[j33pd0g]

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?