QuarkXPress 7 Coming Soon?

[Mass Hysteria]

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.

So true! My thoughts exactly. (Post 31)

Indesign is great for designery work – fiddly to use.
Quark has less features than ID, but is quick for 'banging out' artwork.
It just depends what you need to do.

If they keep adding features without refining the code, will we end up with an application that can do 'everything' (very badly), needs Deep Thought to run it, and this screen to hold all the palettes.

 

[Josias]

My dad runs 4.1 (for Windows) on his PC. It is not very impressive, and compared to Keynote 2, it is nothing. I believe 7 will be better, but so far, I would never pay that much for a program (my dad paid $300 for it through someone that didn't use it more). BTW. what sort of hardware dongle does 6.5 use. 4.1 for Windows uses a parallel port.

 

[psycho bob]

My dad runs 4.1 (for Windows) on his PC. It is not very impressive, and compared to Keynote 2, it is nothing. I believe 7 will be better, but so far, I would never pay that much for a program (my dad paid $300 for it through someone that didn't use it more). BTW. what sort of hardware dongle does 6.5 use. 4.1 for Windows uses a parallel port.

Comparing Quark Xpress to Keynote 2 is like comparing chalk and cheese. The Corporate and education licenses discussed for the most part here don't require a dongle. I'm not even sure 4.1 for mac did in general. I assume the vast majority of dongles these days will be USB.

 

[The Red Wolf]

Comic Book Guy

In the imortal words of the Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons... "Worst Application Ever!"

Quark sucks. Quark makes crap bloatware that isn't even worthy of being called a virus. I've troubleshot that damn application in its many forms and each is the spawn of a dead pug bred with the excrement of stock brokers. I hate the application, I hate the company, the fact that the word Quark appeared on Mac Rumors makes me want to... Why am I even bothering to post about this?

::Mad giggles::

~Rotwulf~

 

[joemama]

Quark 6 really burned our magazine's production department, so much so everyone kept using 4.01 under Classic. I won't even mention Quark 5, which we thankfully avoided using.

Well said. We did the same thing - had to use 4.0. InDesign is by far a superior product and Quark missed the boast on their own arrogance. Most professionals haven't touched Quark in years, and have no interest in switching back.

Let's just hope Adobe learned from Quark's mistake and goes universal soon.

 

[joemama]

completely unrelated....

remember Adobe GoLive 1.0 and how horrible it was, and all us DreamWeaver folk loved to trash it?

 

[narco]

Arguing about Quark vs. InDesign is like arguing about the Mac vs. PC, religion, or politics. Everyone has their preference, so arguing about it isn't going to change anything (much). I've been using Quark for 11 years now and I'm sure if I had been using InDesign for that long I'd be a pro at that too.

I gave InDesign a try after people said I could use Quark shortcuts and import files, but it really didn't help any. My coworkers at my old job used to think I was a robot because I only use keyboard commands and can do any job a 1/3 of the time it took for them to do the same thing.

The national magazine I work for only sends PDFs to the printer, so it really doesn't matter what program I use. A lot of people tell me "oh, I hate the way Quark handles PDF files" but I have YET to have a problem with any of my files. They come out exactly how I want them to, and that's all I need.

One thing's for sure, Quark better lower their educational prices. The college I went to went with InDesign because it was cheaper. Quark really did screw up over the past few years, but I think they're starting to make up for it now. A little competition never hurt.

Fishes,
narco.

 

[central183]

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

Concerning magazine sales.

I've looked for hard proof on the net and have found some interesting sources. Perhaps the best information I've found is from ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation) found at the magazine.org link below. It shows that over all sales of the magazines it tracks hit a peak in 1999 at 372,115,830. Since then, sales have gone up and down to the current point of 362,281,559.

One article at Think Secret suggests that Mac Magazine Sales are down, which is a trend with computer magazines. Many technically advanced people are going to go to the net for computer information.

One interesting point from the Forbes article was how many publishers are "padding" their sales figures. ARE MAGAZINES REALLY SELLING, OR DO THEY GIVE A LOT OF COPIES AWAY? Think Secret also pointed this out. As sales fall, many publishers send copies out to people who don't really want them. This artificially pads circulation numbers to convince advertisers to buy more ads.

What makes you think that there are more magazines [print] than ever? Because you see a whole rack of them at the store? Sure there are more titles than ever, but as you look at the big picture, the over all number of sales are dropping slowly. Magazine are struggling to compete with not only the internet, but actually more so with TV.

You can find your links to counter what I've said. I welcome it. I don't know if I'm 100% right, but I do see a trend of less magazine sales all together. I did not have time to look at newsprint sales, but I believe they are falling too.

If you look ahead. More people will get broadband with TV and internet which will continue to take a bite out of traditional media. Also consider that energy prices are set to skyrocket. Magazines are heavy and shipping will add to their price.

http://www.magazine.org/Circulation/circulation_trends_and_magazine_handbook/1318.cfm

http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0604magazines.html

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/FineOnMedia/archives/2005/12/forbes_circulat.html

 

[Konradx]

Im suprised so many people know about Quark. Im from the printing industry, and ive been to Print Tradeshows, and have seen this program since its very early betas. And yes i dread Quark, especially the older versions, which didnt include simple commands such as undo more than once. I love InDesign, and i dont think Quark will regain the marketshare it once had. Though there is a portion of the Printing industry that finds a program, incorporates it into there workflow, and changes the program once every 10 years. If it works, dont fix it. So there is still a chunk of companies using old version of Quark who may upgrade to 7.

The strength of InDesign is the way it works so well with Acrobat, Illustrator, and Photoshop.

 

[joemama]

One thing's for sure, Quark better lower their educational prices. The college I went to went with InDesign because it was cheaper.

Narco - good points. Everyone has their own opinions and I don't think people are trying to convert others, just stating their view. I think a Macrumor's poll would be fun though (if there isn't one already).

As far as education, I can tell you from a person who worked (and still does freelance) in the print industry and now teaches. We use InDesign (unfortunately on PCs), but the main reason was the cost and ease of installation and learning curve. That and many students already have used photoshop in one capacity or another and are family with adobe's tools.

 

[jrath1]

I've used both and they seem to be no different to me. I'm still the one that has to create the artwork.

 

[areyouwishing]

I've never heard one pre-pree person bitch abotu Quark.....ever.

I've heard plenty of bitching about InDesign.

I think Blue's comments regarding the two suites is dead on.

I'll bitch.

Horrible Postscript support,
horrible color management (not so much with 7).
Horrible PDF support. (really, why would i want to have presets for outputing PDFs?)
Horrible bleed support.
Horrible link placement support.
Cumbersome Links Window... yes, i really DO want to update all of them, but please ask me for each link.
Horrible Fonts support... yes, linotype really has loaded that font.
Quark 7s transparency makes rasters, even when it doesn't need to.

Oh yeah, i've been using ID for 3 years, and quark for well over 6.

 

[TopGear]

Irony happens...

Oh man, this is great news.

Wait a second... What's Quark again? BECAUSE EVERYONE I KNOW HAS SWITCHED TO INDESIGN.

I write this as a working journalist / designer of 10 years. I was trained on Quark. I loved Quark. I did some great work on Quark. But in the past four or five years it has become irrelevant for most working designers I know. It's a joke. Too little, too late.

 

[beatle888]

If you work in Pre-press this is not a welcomed thing.

exactly my thoughts. i remember talking to quark many times...shaking my head as they apologized for problems their software alone caused the production houses. quark caused the industry so much money with their bugs that everyone i talked to stopped buying updates after 4.4 (i believe thats the correct update). quark 6 alright but i hate it. its so simple its rediculous. it take more time to prepare files for production rather than using indesign simply because it cant make a simple semi transparent drop shadow. so there software has been in its frozen state for years and now they wanna tell us that they finally know how to do drop shadows? indesign is worlds away. WORLDS.

by the way, how often do you use layout spaces...i doubt any production department would. the work flow just doesnt make it an easy solution. typically your gonna have more than one artist on the project and if all the different layouts are in one document than how are the managers going to split the project up? also, what about quark syaing that they where gonna give up the mac platform and only write for windows? remember that? right around OSX came out.

 

[cgmpowers]

The only thing I like about quark...

There's only one thing I really like about Quark... I like the ability to have multiple layouts and have those multiple layouts have different sizes. For example, I did a direct mail piece that had multiple parts and all were different sizes.. Brochure, Business Card, Letterhead, envelope, return envelope and reply card were all in ONE document. Its a lot easier to have a multipiece project in one document than having several seperate files..

I am hoping InDesign CS3 incorporates that feature.. Its VERY handy!!

However, I prefer the ease of use of InDesign...

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.

 

[beatle888]

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.

actually, indesign allows you to work extremely fast. try using the eyedropper to apply text attributes or creating an object style. i love the ability to nest style sheets this allows you to apply multiple styles to a single line of text...very helpful for catalog work. and if you have a heavily designed brochure...its easy to get those design elements into indesign or even create them right there in the page layout application. i do sometimes think that its a bit much but then i think wow i love this application. you can actually link to a word document and if someone changes the word document to make edits, the links pallet will let you know to update the linked word document just as if it was a graphic...and the text automatically updates.

you know whats strange...the only way to view the links information in quark is through a limited dialog box...i dont know, its almost to simple for me at this point. i know the application very well, use it every week day for the last fifteen years or more. its a drag to have to use it after getting use to indesign. indesign isnt really that cumbersome, only on the surface. if you hide the tabs and just use the tool bar at the top of the screen.

maybe its just because i think indesign is a lot of fun to use. it sorta makes production a little more interesting. quark is sorta bla bla bla, boring and indesign is sort of exciting to use. and it really does allow you to be more efficient but you better have a nice system to run it.

 

[Leoff]

This is gonna be funny.

Half the comments in here are "Quark Sucks!" "Too Little, Too Late!" "It's an antiquated piece of crap!" "Never going back to Quark!"...

... yet I bet a majority of those complainers will be among the first in line to buy Quark 7 after their eyes pop out of their heads when they see all the "wow!" features it has.

I have no idea about the new version of the program or it's abilities, but I'm not stupid enough to trash the new version when I haven't even seen it yet.

This kinda reminds me of the XBox 360 vs. Playstation 3 battle. I've seen a ton of people trashing PS3 simply because it's late. Yet you KNOW sales will go through the roof when it's finally released.

 

[central183]

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

Kirby, I seem to be proving you wrong. I've found more links and evidence that newspaper and magazine sales are down. Before I turn this into a flame war I will take into consideration that I'm in America and you are in the UK where magazine sales may be more popular. I am having a harder time finding circulation figures for the UK. In America at least, sales of printed material do seem to be falling.


Here's an interesting blog pointing towards steady newspaper decline along with the general corruption of the industry concerning padding circulation numbers to lure advertisers.

http://www.slate.com/id/2105344/

Another article point to newspaper decline

Newspaper circulation has declined for decades as consumers have found new places to cull news and information. Edward Wasserman of Washington and Lee University writes that newspapers have lost 8 percent of their circulation in the last decade and that 12 of the 25 largest newspapers lost circulation last year.

http://www.winning-newsmedia.com/newspapr.htm

More here:

The biggest publishers may show the largest declines: Gannett Co., which owns about 100 newspapers, says it will be down "a couple of points" from last year's levels. Circulation at Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times is likely to be off in excess of 6% of its most recently reported figures. Belo Corp.'s Dallas Morning News expects to report daily circulation down 9% and Sunday circulation down 13% from the year-earlier period. All projected figures are for the six months ended in March.

The losses come at a time when Americans have many news outlets that didn't exist 20 years ago, including cable-television news channels and Internet sites, as well as email and cellphone alerts. Many newspapers have substantial and free online sites offering much of what is in the printed paper. These sites might not hurt readership overall, but they can erode a newspaper's paying audience.

http://online.wsj.com/public/articl...XytqgOMS5A_20050601.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

I've focused on Newsprint and Magazines, but look at other areas. I just bought a printer and the entire manual was on the disk. I've seen this several times with products I've purchased. Electronic manuals are done easily in InDesign. Quark and all it's prepress crapola is not needed.

The one area that I'm not familiar with is packaging design, which is why Blue Velvet might have decided to poke at me. Considering that we as consumers buy more junk then ever, it would be logical that there is more of a demand for boxes, tins and jars with product design. In that respect "print" is growing. However you can not convince me that newspapers and magazines are growing more than ever.

Thus I stick with my original assessment that hard times are ahead for Quark while InDesign takes market share. At the same time magazine and newspaper circulation will drop, putting a squeeze on the whole industry. Sooner or later advertisers will come to grips with this and start redirecting more advertising dollars away from print. A fall out will follow.

Print designers need to wake the hell up and start learning HTML, PHP and SQL

Print wont die today, next week or even next year. But it will suffer a slow decline over the next 2 decades.

 

[PlayUltimate]

don't use either one

I'm not in this industry and thus don't need either one of these applications. But being a Mac Guy, I don't understand why this is rated negative in such a high percentage.
Regardless of your preferred app, this is good news for Mac as it is another company developing for UB, which will only help the transition.
Additionally, it is always good to have competition. Quark lots its footing, in part, due to the lack of competition. This announcement will only help keep InDesign current and fresh.

 

[cmcconkey]

Indesign and Quark

I have been in the printing field since 1997 and all that time I have been in pre-press.

The pre-press environment that I work in is one that does a lot of over and over printing, and we let designers come up with the grand ideas for the new look of things. We are an under staffed shop that has 30+ years of pre-press experience and we are the ones that make it work after the designers send us there "idea" our nightmare. We just recently got in a redesigned job for our number 2 client. Their designer send in a great looking design but as soon as we put it through our Celebra rip it looked at it and scratched its head and gave up. So we start going through it and with 2 of us knowing Illustrator well enough, to do about anything we could ever need in it and be asleep, we started digging around in the file and found no problems. We export it to an EPS and send it through Illustrator and everything works great. We export a PDF from Indesign and the rip still does the same. But we make an eps of it and distill it using Adobe Distiller everything is fine.

From the day that the Creative Suite was introduced and available to be purchased I had a copy. We got this knowing that the designers of the world would be torturing us with buggy files that would not work just as they did with Quark 5 and Quark 6 (before the updates). I was right and about a month later I had disasters coming in left and right from designers, built in Indesign. The only way we could get it to go through our Scitex Rip was to convert it into an Illustrator eps and send it that way. Indesign has been a thorn in my side ever since it came out because it has so many cute and shiny things you can do, which don't work in a production environment like what I am in every day. One might say that it was our rip and it is outdated and not as compatible as is needed. Well we are now running a full Fuji setup that includes the Fuji Celebra rip. The Celebra rip is built on the Adobe 3016 rip system, which is used to make the PDFs in Acrobat 7.0. Even with this rip we have MANY problems in getting Indesign files through the rip. But if we get it out of an InDesign format, and into either an eps placed into quark or a distilled PDF, everything runs like a dream. I have tried many times to use InDesign in some of my freelancing, because I know that there has to be something good about it to come from the great people that brought us Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat, but when I do work in it I get really annoyed about how they tried to put PageMaker and Illustrator in a blender and create a Quark killer but instead got a mess.

I am not sure what everyone sees in InDesign but obviously there is something to it because it is taking hold at many places in the business. I have worked with all the beta versions of Quark 7 and the first is the only one that I had a problem with (crashing every other keystroke). Once beta version 2 came out, I downloaded it and saw GREAT improvements that have thought would be of great use for many years even back in the Quark 3 days. I was also in on the Quark 7 webinar that showed off the pure power of Quark 7. There were many things in it that were very great additions and everything was running very quick. I got curious so I stopped paying attention to the clues as to what kind of computer the speaker was running it on. I noticed that it was on a powerbook or MBP and everything was running as slick as it would on my Dual 2.5 G5 with 4 gig of ram. This really impressed me, so much that I am willing to drop the money the day Quark is released to get a copy for me to start testing with my rip. Anyone that has gone over to the InDesign camp either by force or just by Quark letting them down over the years, I believe that if they were to get their hands onto Quark 7 and work with it they would be back with Quark.

Christopher

 

[G.Kirby]

Central138, Your evidence is strong and my hat goes off to you. It does look like magazine and newspaper sales are in decline in the US and I apologise for my earlier statement, it was flippant and rude. I have tried to find evidence for other nations and have so far been unsuccessful.

However, I think what we should be looking at is not the sales of magazines, newspapers, books etc but the variety that is available. For example, even if a magazine’s sales are in decline someone still has to design it. Due to the vast array of topics that are available in magazines, newspapers, books etc design for print is still a very healthy business. Each year we have about 40 students graduate for our Graphic Design course and almost all find work in the graphics industry. The vast majority of placement is in design for print. Several of our graduates do design purely for web and it is a skill that we teach each all our students but demand from employers is primarily for design for print.

So even though your evidence is showing a decline in print sales my experience is that variety of print is growing so Quark is still an important part of the designers tool box.

 

[G.Kirby]

Anyone that has gone over to the InDesign camp either by force or just by Quark letting them down over the years, I believe that if they were to get their hands onto Quark 7 and work with it they would be back with Quark.

Christopher

This is the feed back that I am getting from my contacts in the industry too.

 

[zweigand]

One thing I wish InDesign did that Quark does beautifully ...resize documents from the upper left hand corner instead of from the middle. Nothing bugs me more! Other than that I love InDesign. Quark 6.5 is horrible. The refresh problems are almost as bad as 4 in classic, the AppleScript support sucks, can't even draw a line and align it with the ruler, and there are so many other minor annoyances that just make it frustrating as hell to work in. Do they fix these things? No, you are expected to buy Quark 7. With all the new stuff in Quark 7 I can't imagine how buggy it will be. They better get their act together.

 

[70355]

Why am I even bothering to post about this?

I was wondering that myself.

Possible reasons:
1) You have nothing better to do
2) You want to waste bandwidth

 

[G.Kirby]

Do you have any evidence to back up your opinion, or are you just talking out of your a** again?

We have very strong connections with the design industry through out the UK, USA and Europe. We also actively contact ex-students to see how they are getting on and incorporate their feed back into our course. The single most common request is TEACH MORE QUARK.

My a** has spoken