[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

"Quark on Tuesday announced that its much anticipated page-layout application, QuarkXPress 7, is shipping. The shipping version is not a Universal Binary, meaning it will not run natively on Apple's new Intel-based Macs."

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/05...php?lsrc=mwrss

[lookmark]

The UB part did seem too good to be true.

Just for the record -- unless it's improved considerably since Beta 1 -- Quark 7 still lags well behind InDesign in features, UI, and just generally feeling like a post-System 7 app.

They've finally added transparency and improved PDF output, though.

[Eug Wanker]

I was kinda surprised when they said that 7 would a UB, given Quark's history. I guess history prevails.

Still, if they can get a UB of 7 out this year that's not bad. The Intel Tower Macs won't be out until later this year anyway.

Not that it matters to me, since I don't use Quark.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

They should have just waited a couple months and released it as a UB.

Most people who use quark stick to version 4 or 5 as they suck the least.

Funny thing is the box says universal binary on it and they covered it with a sticker.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1764

[nbnz]

A beta of the Universal Binery is available.
http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/seven/beta.html

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by lookmark

The UB part did seem too good to be true.

Just for the record -- unless it's improved considerably since Beta 1 -- Quark 7 still lags well behind InDesign in features, UI, and just generally feeling like a post-System 7 app.

They've finally added transparency and improved PDF output, though.

ANd ID still lacks some essential features Quark has had for a long time, custom kerning tables and Xpress Tags among them. I've been using the Q7 beta at home and have liked it a lot: it got noticably faster as they released subsequent betas and opened all the docs I could throw at it with no problem. And the interface still beats ID, hands down.

Should be interesting.

[Apfhex]

Yay.

Not.

In all seriousness I'm looking forward to dealing with a version of Quark that sucks less than 6.5.

[workerbee]

I just checked the pricing in Quarks Online store:

QXP 7 english full download in the US store: US$ 749
QXP 7 english full download in the Swiss store: US$ 1'383.694

No thanks.

[siMac]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

ANd ID still lacks some essential features Quark has had for a long time, custom kerning tables and Xpress Tags among them.

Custom kerning tables
XPress Tags

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

And the interface still beats ID, hands down.

I strongly disagree - care to elaborate?

[siMac]

Originally Posted by workerbee

I just checked the pricing in Quarks Online store:

QXP 7 english full download in the US store: US$ 749
QXP 7 english full download in the Swiss store: US$ 1'383.694

No thanks.

Yeah, all graphics software costs twice as much in Europe. Does your ass hurt too?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by siMac

Custom kerning tables
XPress Tags

Using third party stuff always brings risk: incompatabilities, crashes, etc. I try to avoid them whenever possible.

I strongly disagree - care to elaborate?

Sure. The problem echoes the problems found in the Pagemaker interface, namely that InDesign was designed by designers, Quark by typesetters. What this means in the real world is that it takes two to three times as many keystrokes/mouse movements to do the same task in ID as in Quark.

Example: I'm styling text in Quark, a table of alternating light and dark bands. I have two style sheets set up, one for the light band and one for the dark band. I style one of each. In Quark I then click once on a light-banded line, and option click on each successive line of text I wish to style with the light band. It's a simple process which doesn't require me to move my hands away from where they've been.

In ID, it's not that easy. After selecting text I have to select the eye dropper tool. I can't use the keyboard shortcut (I), because that will insert the letter "I" into the text I'm editing. So I have to use the mouse to select the eyedropper tool from the Tools palette, option-click in the line of text from which I wish to pick up the style, and then click on each lne of text. If the Tools palette is hidden behing another palette, or if I have hit the tab key to hide all the windows, I have to spend more time making the Tools palette visible.

Let's say I'm styling text in preparation to making a style sheet, and I want to change the point size. In Quark I select the text I wish to change, hit the keyboard shortcut (Command-Shift-\), type the new text size and hit return. I don't have to take my hands off the keyboard. In ID it's more complicated. If the Character palette is visible, I have to take my hands off the keyboard, use the mouse to highlight the text size field, and type the new text size. If the palette isn't visible I have to hit the keyboard combination for the Character palette and type the new text size. The problem with that is that, once the palette is visible, there is no keyboard shortcut to select the text size without hitting the keyboard shortcut twice to select the text size field. If I want to change the space before in Quark, I hit the keyboard shortcut (Command-Shift-F), shift-tab, shift-tab, enter the new value and hit return, all without taking my hands off the kayboard. In ID, it's the same process as changing type size, which requires either taking one hand off the keyboard to use the mouse and hightlight the field, or hitting the keyboard shortcut twice. Over and over again, doing the same simple thing in ID takes two or three times the number of keystrokes as in Quark. And, this follows for all text editing, including changing space before, space after, leading, etc.

Essentially, Adobe took the palette-based interface from Illustrator/Photoshop and tacked it onto a layout program. The problem is that a palleteized interface is a uniquely bad choice for laying out text. In Illustrator and Photoshop you are rarely ever editing large amounts of text, so you're free to use the keyboard for tool/action shortcuts. I can fly through either Illustrator or Photoshop because I have most of the tool shortcuts memorized. However, in ID you have to use the keyboard to edit and enter text so you lose an enormous amount of flexibililty. In order to use a keyboard tool shortcut, say the eyedropper tool, I have to option-click out of of the text box I'm working in and use my mouse to select the tool from the Tools palette, which requires me to take one hand off the keyboard and grab the mouse. While this might sound like a small thing, when I'm editing large documents (like the four 100+ page annual reports I'm currently working on) the lost time adds up, and ID ends up being much, much slower than Quark. For reasons I don't understand, Adobe didn't give ID the same depth of keyboard chortcut control as Quark. This inefficiency is one of the main reasons I think that ID has not been the smashing success Adobe wants everyone to think it is.

Even the features in ID which Adobe touts don't work so well. Yes, it's nice to be able to see vector artwork at high resolution, but if you turn on hi-res previews for the entire document, be prepared to wait several seconds between pages as the screen redraws. For this reason, I keep the previews at lo res.

There are others things as well. ID, and the whole CS2 suite is an enormous memory hog: the IT people where I work have found that it requires a gig of RAM, on its own, to perform well. ID is also a resource hog: you need a dual-processor G5 to make it run as quickly as Quark on a dual G4. If you have a site license, spends an enormous amount of time talking to its license server, so much so that one of the IT people put Little Snitch on one of the production machines to try and figure out why CS2 was running so slow. The amount of network traffic he found amazed him and helped explain why CS2 runs more slowly than the original CS suite.

The bottom line is that ID's interface is horribly inefficient for text-intensive documents. If you're using it on simple ads or small tri-folds, it's okay. But, if you're using it on a long, complicated document it's like using Quark while wearing boxing gloves: imprecise, frustrating and unecessary.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

So does it still have that nasty copy protection?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

UExample: I'm styling text in Quark, a table of alternating light and dark bands. I have two style sheets set up, one for the light band and one for the dark band. I style one of each. In Quark I then click once on a light-banded line, and option click on each successive line of text I wish to style with the light band. It's a simple process which doesn't require me to move my hands away from where they've been.

In ID, it's not that easy. After selecting text I have to select the eye dropper tool. I can't use the keyboard shortcut (I), because that will insert the letter "I" into the text I'm editing. So I have to use the mouse to select the eyedropper tool from the Tools palette, option-click in the line of text from which I wish to pick up the style, and then click on each lne of text. If the Tools palette is hidden behing another palette, or if I have hit the tab key to hide all the windows, I have to spend more time making the Tools palette visible.

This sounds like you are doing this too complicated.

http://www.theindesigner.com/podcast...esigner_19.mp4

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

This sounds like you are doing this too complicated.

http://www.theindesigner.com/podcast...esigner_19.mp4

Can't see the video at work, but if it's about using the table tool, then it's a bad idea. The table tool is horrible for doing long, complicated tables because it makes universal changes very difficult. If the client decides to change the space before, space after, rules or number of columns on the tables half way thorough, using the table tool leaves you no choice but to go through and edit every table by hand, which, in a an annual report could take days. This is why style sheets were invented.

If it's not about using the table tool then I won't be able to see it until this evening.

[siMac]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Using third party stuff always brings risk: incompatabilities, crashes, etc. I try to avoid them whenever possible.

Then how did you ever get by in Quark?

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

The bottom line is that ID's interface is horribly inefficient for text-intensive documents.

You make some good points, but it seems a little harsh to write off ID's interface based on it having different keyboard shortcuts.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

While this might sound like a small thing, when I'm editing large documents (like the four 100+ page annual reports I'm currently working on) the lost time adds up, and ID ends up being much, much slower than Quark.

Sure each program has its strengths and weaknesses, but it sounds like an ID strength that could help you save time with your reports/tables is nested styles - definitely worth taking the time to figure out properly.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

Even the features in ID which Adobe touts don't work so well. Yes, it's nice to be able to see vector artwork at high resolution, but if you turn on hi-res previews for the entire document, be prepared to wait several seconds between pages as the screen redraws. For this reason, I keep the previews at lo res.

As well you should, high-res preview was never meant to be activated all the time, but it's very handy to be able to preview your page that way. Even more handy is the ability to turn it on/off by element, very helpful for precise positioning.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

There are others things as well. ID, and the whole CS2 suite is an enormous memory hog: the IT people where I work have found that it requires a gig of RAM, on its own, to perform well.

Normal. If InDesign was just drawing text and frames with low-res images à la Quark it would fly too. If you start to add complex transparency effects (your choice) etc then you can expect it to slow down, likewise for XPress 7. In any case a gig of RAM is an absolute minimum for a workstation these days, regardless of if you're using ID or not.

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

If you have a site license, spends an enormous amount of time talking to its license server, so much so that one of the IT people put Little Snitch on one of the production machines to try and figure out why CS2 was running so slow. The amount of network traffic he found amazed him and helped explain why CS2 runs more slowly than the original CS suite.

This strikes me as very strange, but I haven't used the ID license server so I can't really say. Are you sure that VersionCue wasn't running?

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by siMac

Then how did you ever get by in Quark?

Didn't need them most of the time.

You make some good points, but it seems a little harsh to write off ID's interface based on it having different keyboard shortcuts.

I'm not writing it off. I am, howver, pointing out that it's horribly inefficient for text-heavy documents. I am agnostic with respect to software, and am currently using ID on Windows XP because that's what the client requires. However, I am not blind to the failings of wither program.

Sure each program has its strengths and weaknesses, but it sounds like an ID strength that could help you save time with your reports/tables is nested styles - definitely worth taking the time to figure out properly.

Nested styles are wonderful, and one of the things ID did right. The eyedropper tool is also great.

As well you should, high-res preview was never meant to be activated all the time, but it's very handy to be able to preview your page that way. Even more handy is the ability to turn it on/off by element, very helpful for precise positioning.

Agreed. My gripe is more with Adobe's marketing hype than the actual feature.

Normal. If InDesign was just drawing text and frames with low-res images à la Quark it would fly too. If you start to add complex transparency effects (your choice) etc then you can expect it to slow down, likewise for XPress 7. In any case a gig of RAM is an absolute minimum for a workstation these days, regardless of if you're using ID or not.

The CS2 suite still, IMO, has an unecessaryily heavy RAM footprint, requiring a gig of RAM by itself.

This strikes me as very strange, but I haven't used the ID license server so I can't really say. Are you sure that VersionCue wasn't running?

VersionCue was running, but the IT guys tracked down the problem to the license server. The tip off was that our installs of CS2 at home were significantly faster even with VersionCue running.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Well, Quark is screwed:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/revi...php?lsrc=mwrss

[Big Mac]

Good for Quark. I like Quark.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Well, Quark is screwed:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/05/revi...php?lsrc=mwrss

Silliest. Comment. Ever: major new features are production oriented and have limited utility for most designers;.

Yet another reason to avoid MacWorld.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Most people who use quark stick to version 4 or 5 as they suck the least.

5? Whaa? I don't think so. AFAIK, version 5 was Quark's worst-selling version, since it came out well after people were switching to OS X en masse, yet was only a Classic app, and added few features. Few people were willing to spend big bucks to upgrade to a new version that wasn't even OS X native. Most waited till that came along, as version 6.

tooki

[Socially Awkward Solo]

So this new quark is offering a speed hit of 50% because of the "new" graphics engine. Everything else is catchup with InDesign except for that job jackets that not many will use.

Nice.

[voodoo]

Good job Quark! This is by far the best version of QXP yet! I helped beta-test it so I've been using QXP7 for some months now. The universal binary is still in beta, so it will be released later. The G5 towers are still the high-end Macs so rushing the UB out wasn't a priority, but it is close to being complete.

v

[tooki]

"Good job"? Delivering what should have been done about 3 years ago is a "good job" and that's without it even being a UB? C'mon. Always praise when praise is due -- this isn't such a case.

tooki

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

So this new quark is offering a speed hit of 50% because of the "new" graphics engine. Everything else is catchup with InDesign except for that job jackets that not many will use.

Nice.

I didn't notice any speed hit on my beta copies of 7. Ran faster than ID on the same machine.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Good job Quark! This is by far the best version of QXP yet! I helped beta-test it so I've been using QXP7 for some months now. The universal binary is still in beta, so it will be released later. The G5 towers are still the high-end Macs so rushing the UB out wasn't a priority, but it is close to being complete.

v

Can you explaining how this reviewer saw such a speed hit then and Quarks EXPLANATION was because of the new graphics engine?

You sound like a total Quark fanboy praising them for these pathetic new features.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Socially Awkward Solo

Can you explaining how this reviewer saw such a speed hit then and Quarks EXPLANATION was because of the new graphics engine?

You sound like a total Quark fanboy praising them for these pathetic new features.

For one thing I have used QXP7 for six months now and had the chance to compare it to previous versions. There is no noticable speed hit. If one feels a speed hit the the remidy is simply to load up any version of ID and use it for five minutes. Then reload Quark and presto! It feels amazingly fast again!! Perhaps because ID is in fact utter crap. Slow crap too. Tsk tsk.

How can one explain the idiocy of one reviewer? Don't see why I should. Whenever John Dvorak writes crap nobody takes him seriously. Same here.

I couldn't care less whether you like the new features or not, but QXP7 is by far the best layout app money can buy today. Fastest too.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by tooki

"Good job"? Delivering what should have been done about 3 years ago is a "good job" and that's without it even being a UB? C'mon. Always praise when praise is due -- this isn't such a case.

tooki

Yeah, good job. I don't assume you were part of the beta testing and development cycle? It was very organized, fast and effective. They did a good job.

Also there is no pleasing some people and if the features that you ask for come at the price of either three years or the glacial slowness of ID, then three years is a better option. Quark is way way faster than ID. Makes ID frustrating to use when one is used to Quark.

This is indeed a case of praise and the UB is well on its way through beta. Quark 7 will be UB before the end of summer.

V

[tooki]

It's good that the development process was efficient. That doesn't change the fact that it's too little, too late. The only thing keeping Quark alive is the droves of people who know the program inside and out.

tooki

[ajprice]

Does Quark 7 still open files made in Quark 4, 5 and 6 (and also InDesign files)? And how will it run on a G4 Quicksilver 800 and G4 Graphite (I think a 533). I've looked on the Quark site and found that it needs OS X 10.4, but can't find anything about file compatibility. (This is for the work machines, not my own).

Edit: Same questions as above go for Quark 6.5, that would mean staying on the OS 10.3 they have and not upgrading the system.

[angelmb]

Originally Posted by ajprice

Does Quark 7 still open files made in Quark 4, 5 and 6 (and also InDesign files)? And how will it run on a G4 Quicksilver 800 and G4 Graphite (I think a 533). I've looked on the Quark site and found that it needs OS X 10.4, but can't find anything about file compatibility. (This is for the work machines, not my own).

Edit: Same questions as above go for Quark 6.5, that would mean staying on the OS 10.3 they have and not upgrading the system.

I can indeed open Quark 6 files -created with the windows counterpart- with the OS X Quark 7.1 demo, but hey, those files are nothing but small.

[angelmb]

I guess it is anybody surprise, but I can not open Quark 7 (Mac) files under a Quark 6 (wintel) computer.

BTW, is the 7.0.2 update worth the huge download?

[rickey939]

Originally Posted by angelmb

BTW, is the 7.0.2 update worth the huge download?

Version 7.0.2:
• License transfer functionality which allows you to move an activated license of QuarkXPress 7.02 or QuarkXPress Passport 7.02 to a new computer on your own.
• Supplemental language support for QuarkXPress 7 Passport customers that provides hyphenation support for additional languages.
• Support for special characters in object and file names when the operating system is set to that language.
• The resolution of several recently discovered issues.

License transfer is just now being implemented? Phew, how revolutionary Quark...bravo! The best part is the "resolution of several recently discovered issues"...haha, what are those exactly Quark?

[Chuckit]

Guys, I just found the final release notes for Leopard! Here they are:

Mac OS X 10.5:
• New backup and versioning technology, Time Machine
• New framework, Core Animation
• Several other things