Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

production_coordinator · May 23, 2006, 09:41 AM

I'm interested to hear how it is received. Quark has a HORRIBLE reputation for "X.0" releases. Needless to say, I'm not rushing out to get it... but will probably pick it up in the next couple of months.

art_director · May 23, 2006, 09:45 AM

I think I was one of three people who actually bought v.5. The migration to v.6 has been slow at best. I'm guessing that v.7 will match v.5 in terms of interest.

Anyone know about backward compatability with v.7? How far down will it save?

almaink · May 23, 2006, 02:16 PM

You can't backsave from 7 but like Illustrator you can export to version 6

art_director · May 23, 2006, 03:18 PM

Have you used this feature? If so, have you put it through the steps with complex files?

Westbo · May 23, 2006, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by art_director

I think I was one of three people who actually bought v.5. The migration to v.6 has been slow at best. I'm guessing that v.7 will match v.5 in terms of interest.

Anyone know about backward compatability with v.7? How far down will it save?

QX7 saves back to 6. BTW, I wondered who the other two were.

W2

almaink · May 24, 2006, 12:03 PM

"Have you used this feature? If so, have you put it through the steps with complex files?"

Being that it's still a beta IMO, no I haven't really put it through production for any but one complex job, and it ripped fine. I also tried exporting to version 6 and although it opened in 6 there were a few reflow issues caused by stacking order. It seems the back-saved doc "forgot" the stacking order and runaround caused the reflow. I did open a few simple jobs in it to see if a font issue I was having in version 6.5 was fixed and it seems to have been fixed. Still not worth a $250 upgrade untill we have to tho.

art_director · May 24, 2006, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by almaink

"Have you used this feature? If so, have you put it through the steps with complex files?"

Being that it's still a beta IMO, no I haven't really put it through production for any but one complex job, and it ripped fine. I also tried exporting to version 6 and although it opened in 6 there were a few reflow issues caused by stacking order. It seems the back-saved doc "forgot" the stacking order and runaround caused the reflow. I did open a few simple jobs in it to see if a font issue I was having in version 6.5 was fixed and it seems to have been fixed. Still not worth a $250 upgrade untill we have to tho.

Thx for the 411.

For me the upgrade won't be a possibility until clients subscribe to it. In recent conversations with tech gurus working for my major clients, this may be the time companies begin moving to ID.

Chad A Wright · May 24, 2006, 07:49 PM

It just got a mediocre review at Macworld. The article seemed to indicate that most of the new features that were aimed at print design were just catch-ups to ID. My question is, if you are currently using Quark (and probably have been for years), will added features that catch up to ID be enough to keep you? I know it wouldn't be enough to get me to switch back.

I switched to ID so I can't really answer my own question.

art_director · May 24, 2006, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Chad A Wright

It just got a mediocre review at Macworld. The article seemed to indicate that most of the new features that were aimed at print design were just catch-ups to ID. My question is, if you are currently using Quark (and probably have been for years), will added features that catch up to ID be enough to keep you? I know it wouldn't be enough to get me to switch back.

I switched to ID so I can't really answer my own question.

At this point it's about compatability w clients' systems. One big one is making the switch. More to follow...

production_coordinator · May 25, 2006, 02:59 PM

I stay quark because:
1) I know how to use it the best
2) it's what all my clients/employers use

I don't think I'm switching any time soon.