QuarkXPress 7 Coming Soon?

[SFVCyclone]

What I hate about these kinds of discussions is that people insist that the issue is so clear-cut, so black and white. As a designer, sure I love InDesign's features but its interface is problematic and its model for transparency isn't as straightforward as the Quark 7 betas I've tried. It also isn't perfect on output by any means.

But on the other hand, when time is tight and you have multiple deadlines a day, Quark is a better tool for knocking stuff out. Of course, you have to know how to use it properly.

perfectly said, its all in the designer and how much they know the program. one feature I like about indesign is how it can save the working areas, and quark doesn't have that. And a feature that quark has that indesign doesnt is the updating part in quark where it can update all the images at once, indesign is one by one.

 

[Silencio]

I, for one, hope Quark 7 is successful and at least maintains Quark's current position in the marketplace. I've used both Quark 3.3 - 6.5 and InDesign 1.0 - CS2 pretty extensively, and both have their pros and cons which others have done a good job outlining here. I just want some credible competition in the marketplace: without Quark, Adobe would completely own the market for graphic design tools, and that's just not a healthy situation for anyone to be in.

 

[Goliath]

I'm reminded of the fact that the reason the iLife suite is so good for Mac is that it's intergrated. Same with FinalCut Studio.

ID is bundled with CS2 and the suite of tools are intergrated (still room for improvement though!) and makes my life easier and cheaper in the long run

 

[Spagolli94]

And a feature that quark has that indesign doesnt is the updating part in quark where it can update all the images at once, indesign is one by one.

Not true. This reminds me of designers at my agency who refuse to switch. They are constantly saying, "I don't like InDesign because it can't do X, Y, Z." In reality they should be saying, "I'm too busy/lazy/afraid to learn a better app, so I'm not sure if it can do X, Y, Z."

Having used both apps for years, there are VERY few things that Quark can do (or do better) that InDesign can't. On the contrary, there are TONS of features I love about InDesign that Quark either can't do or can't do well.

I'm not a Quark lover or InDesign lover. It's just software. But I have spent equal portions of my career using both. Each has positives and negatives, but I'd have to say InDesign wins hands down.

For those who don't like InDesign because they feel it's too bulky, try making your own custom workspaces and keyboard shortcut sets. That's the real beauty of the app... It's very customizable and shortcut friendly.

I had really high hopes for Quark 7. While it is definitely an improvement, for the most part it still suffers from the same old tired interface.

 

[Eric5h5]

I think Quark should just let itself die.

That's just silly. Ideally, Quark and InDesign would each have 50% of the market, and they both would fight hard for anything more (and forever fail to achieve it).

Still, Quark 5 was such an abomination that they ought to give anyone who was forced to use it free upgrades for life.

--Eric

 

[supremedesigner]

Thanks God!

Good news: At my work, we're moving away from Quark 4 (Classic) to Indesign.

Bad news: It's still alive!!!!!!

 

[Highland]

InDesign feels cluttered/awkward until you get used to it. Once you learn all the shortcuts and get used to all the great features, going back to Quark feels like traveling back in time to 1996. I've found that most people (if they give InDesign an honest try and really learn it) will NEVER consider going back to QXP.

The real key lies in how you use the app. Newbs tend to open it and try to use it like Quark. Well then it's not any better. It's just Quark with a different interface. The key is to change your workflow and actually use all the new features - only then will switchers truly appreciate InDesign.

I agree with that. I switched a few years ago (when most of the industry, and the places I was freelancing at did).

One thing I'm surprised not many people are talking about is Xpress's UI vs InDesign's UI... I prefer using InDesign these days, but it features a massive, ugly, giant bloated interface with tiny palettes for every single aspect of every single thing you might want to control. This contrasts Xpress or Photoshop, where you only really need to have 3 palettes up to do 90% of your work. InDesign is a complete mess (and very slow), but it's workable. Certainly not the streamlined workhorse it's sometimes portrayed to be.

On the other hand... Quark took ages to move to OS X, but in doing so (I believe) they moved to Xcode and possibly even used a cocoa code base. This means they're in a very good position to take full advantage of OS X's features in the immediate future. Adobe might not be in that position for a few years.

Either way, it's good that both have to fight for our love.

 

[winmacguy]

If you're talking about Indesign CS1 then maybe yeah, but 2.o PSHHHHH, Theyre both on the same level really.

CS2 is a major improvement over CS1 IMO. CS3 is actually pretty good although just a bit more refined so not a major breakthrough (well that was the impression I got from my breif use of it.)

 

[winmacguy]

i've used Quark on & off for years, but i've never LIKED the program. it's always seemed clunky, it's needlessly slow to get some things done and the quickkeys always seemed cryptic. maybe that was b/c i'm so used to adobe's quickkeys, but nonetheless it's still a little bassackwards.

The quick keys on Quark are f***ing cryptic on Quark when compared to the Adobe package although once your used to them they are relatively easy. It is just a bit of a mind grind when flicking between say Quark and Photoshop.

 

[winmacguy]

Wow! And the pre-press god, know it all has spoken, so we should all dump our software and buy what he tells us!

Anyway, I have friends in ad agencies and most of them uses Quark. One agency just changed to ID about a year ago and all I hear is complain about it (they changed because ID is cheaper). So, there you go, maybe you're not as right as you think...

If all they are doing is complaining I would say it would be a very bad case of PEBKAC rather than issues with the application.

 

[winmacguy]

I agree with that. I switched a few years ago (when most of the industry, and the places I was freelancing at did).

One thing I'm surprised not many people are talking about is Xpress's UI vs InDesign's UI... I prefer using InDesign these days, but it features a massive, ugly, giant bloated interface with tiny palettes for every single aspect of every single thing you might want to control.

I might be wrong but I think you can do that with InDesign CS3. At the time I was using it in an interview I got the impression that they had improved that part of the GUI although I didn't have enough time to muck around experimenting. I know that I found that the pallete organisation part of CS3 was a gradual improvement on CS2 in InDesign.

 

[maxp1]

My company ditched Quark a couple years ago. Mostly because it's Applescript support is terrible and slow. There are many things that are impossible to automate and it's hard to code even basic tasks.

InDesign's Applescript support is MUCH better. The object model is better organized and easier to understand. And much faster too. Tasks that were converted from Quark script to InDesign scripts run about twice as fast.

That's why we changed. I'm still more comfortable working in Quark but the time savings and scripting ease far outweigh giving up years of learning the ins and outs of a program.

 

[MistDragonCA]

oh dear God no...

And this is a good thing...why? Honestly, Quark is dead if you ask me. Adobe has really impressed me with InDesign and I have no desire to ever go back to that antiquated piece of crap again.

 

[Blue Velvet]

Where Quark have really failed, apart from producing shoddy software and execrable customer support, is the education market where they overpriced their product and essentially forced educational institutions to drop it in favour of Creative Suite. So you've got a lot of young talent coming through that is far more comfortable in Adobe's UI than Quark's.

Sometimes, I wonder how well InDesign would have done if Adobe didn't have the other design apps to bundle and integrate around it. Probably not that well, is my guess.

Anyway, those of us who use this stuff to make a living are usually wedded to a workflow precisely because it doesn't interfere with their creative thinking.

Because of pressure of work, I literally cannot take the time to fully immerse myself in InDesign at the moment, apart from the occasional freelance project but when I do I almost get as giddy as this again.

 

[G.Kirby]

And this is a good thing...why? Honestly, Quark is dead if you ask me. Adobe has really impressed me with InDesign and I have no desire to ever go back to that antiquated piece of crap again.

Quark ain't dead yet. I have had info that several pubishers are dropping InDesign and going back to Quark for version 7. This is on the strength of the Beta that was released. I am off to the launch on the 2nd so I will see what is what when I get there.

As we are an education insitution we will be running InDesign and Quark side by side but only giving formal lectures in Quark.....which is (like it or not) STILL the Daddy.

 

[winmacguy]

I see 1 of Quarks benefits also being 1 of InDesign's faults in the bloat of the application for InDesign and relevant lack of for Quark. For all the pros and cons for either app- InDesign user here- I look forward to seeing how the market reacts to version 7 of Quark and what Adobe comes up with for CS4?
The main reaon I had/have for my dislike of Quark in principle is all of their years of arrogance and snobbery of not listening to their customers and updating the application over time or to coincide with the release of OS X. I my book if you piss your customers off you lose them to the opposition and no matter how will you seek to improve your product it takes a while for those customers to return especially when the opposition can produce a very capable application to make your work flow easier.

 

[G.Kirby]

Yes, Quark's customer services has been abysmal and for the most part still is. We have over 120 seats of Quark 6.5 and all are from lab packs. Talking to a sales rep about Quark 7 and possible prices for education lab packs and I was told that upgrades will not be made available for lab packs. So we will need to buy 120 new seats for Quark 7 leaving us with 120 useless seats of Quark 6.5……which we can’t even sell because it is a breach of the license agreement.

This type of crap MUST change.

 

[Blue Velvet]

...I was told that upgrades will not be made available for lab packs.

Same with Adobe apps and once Macromedia. There are no upgrades for educational pricing.

We're a registered charity so purchase our software through a specialist broker — they're all educational licenses and when CS3 is released it means buying the entire package all over again.

 

[717]

My take:

InDesign — creatively-inspiring but a bit cumbersome and palette-heavy.
Quark — clunky but extremely fast in the hands of someone who knows what they're doing.

Well said

 

[G.Kirby]

Same with Adobe apps and once Macromedia. There are no upgrades for educational pricing.

We're a registered charity so purchase our software through a specialist broker — they're all educational licenses and when CS3 is released it means buying the entire package all over again.

We were able to get upgrades for our lab packs when we went from v4.1 to v6. I think it's a bit ****** for the Quark consumer if they do go back on the chance to upgrade. Surely it would make good business sense to get designers, printers and educators into Quark 7 as easily and cheaply as possible.

 

[central183]

Quark Who?

Q-u-a-r-k W-h-o?

 

[central183]

Quark Who?

Who gives a flying frog about Quark.

The few people who are interested about Quark 7 are the poor slobs still stuck doing newspaper and magazine work.

The internet is steadily ruining magazine sales. Quark's days are numbered. The print work that is left will be taken by InDesign.

Anyone like me who has lived through the whole 4.1 Classic episode will be forever bitter and resentful to even hear the name Quark. New logos, CEOs and attitudes can never change the soiled image of this company. Most designers who had a choice, left Quark for InDesign years ago. The only designers that use this miserable program are forced to by their bosses who are terrified of retooling the whole house.

I remember when we retooled our firm. I had to put enormous pressure on the boss to get him to finally switch to InDesign. He was very set in his ways, even though Quack was crap. Looking back though, he's so happy I did.

 

[Blue Velvet]

The few people who are interested about Quark 7 are the poor slobs still stuck doing newspaper and magazine work.

You're so wrong about that, it's laughable.

 

[psycho bob]

I'm sure I'm alone but I don't see Quark 7 and Indesign as direct competitors in the form of features or target market only in the sense they are both generally speaking DTP tools. I didn't word that very well but will endeavour to explain.

As a creative tool I find Indesign to be superior especially if you are savvy with the Photoshop way of working. The integration with the other Adobe apps is welcome but as a stand alone tool I find it very appealing and have used it since version 1. I don't buy the argument that it is bloated from a performance perspective, although I did find CS1 a little duff, when you weigh in how powerful it is I find it's peformance good and have used it happily on a 1GHz Powerbook.

Quark is the ideal prepress/print tool, it is fast to use (for the most part but I don't find it intuitive at all) and easy on the eye. I first used it at version 4 and in my mind it just hasn't evolved as it shold have since. Quoting 60% market share is one thing but I highly doubt the vast majority are using the latest version so the actual number of updates and market share would be reducing. I know a number of printers that actually bought up stock of Apple's OS9 compatible machines just to extend the use of 4.1 (still the best version IMHO). Most of Quarks power features are behind the scenes or for output it simply isn't a designers tool for the most part. Adobe has done well to make the impact they have with ID, the ability to bundle with other apps is a huge advantage as is making the undoubted king of image manipulation software for professional use.

The Quark mindset dates back to the dawn of DTP and hasn't really changed, I like version 7 but it isn't revolutionary it can't afford to be. Quark are not in a position to out Adobe Adobe.

From an education level Quark is still taught actvely (although not indepth) in the UK which is very important as this is where new talent is bloodied. As long as this is the case Quark will always have a place as it won't just be its stalwart users in its camp. Quark must realise though that the majority of students who get to use ID do favour it for its features and Photoshop like layout. If your a life long Quark user it is indeed intuitive if your not then it can be a real pain in the ass.

Quark has loyal users and rightly so but this is maybe born out of the fact they invested heavily in it prior to ID and not a reflection on its development progress. Framemaker is Adobe's real competitor to Quark if only they marketed it better. I think it would have Quark beat hands down as it doesn't try to be the all tools to all men that ID does.

As Blue Velvet said young designers favour ID. Quark in many ways is old school thinking and marketing (price is a huge issue) and it will take more than a logo change to swing that around.


On a completely separate issue Apple's education licensing does allow for upgrades through the use of retail upgrades. The license type however alters to reflect this. Can you not upgrade Adobe and Quark apps through the use of retail upgrade packs cheaper then buying all new education licenses? I've never had to do it so could be talking out my posterior but for individual users this is an option

 

[G.Kirby]

The few people who are interested about Quark 7 are the poor slobs still stuck doing newspaper and magazine work.

The internet is steadily ruining magazine sales.

To say that you are so wrong about this statement is to put it mildly. There is more print than ever before and it is still growing. Yes the internet is the information highway but it will NEVER kill print. Print will continue to grow and grow as reproduction cost come down and down.

You really need a reality check