[Westfoto]

I just saw this on the Macnn.com front page. oddly none of the links work except one to a site in Swedish (sp?) I can not read it

It would be nice to see Photoshop native for OS X. I would pick it up rite away.

West

[mitchell_pgh]

Just one more step to OSX 24/7...

Come on Quark...

[Mac Guru]

It's called InDesign... Quark will progessively lose ground in the DTP world that uses OS X every day we don't have an X version.

InDesign 2.0 ROCKS.

Mac Guru

[mitchell_pgh]

Soon InDesign will be worth it, but not yet... It's PDF tools rock, but there are still some issues with printing...

[Westfoto]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>Soon InDesign will be worth it, but not yet... It's PDF tools rock, but there are still some issues with printing...</STRONG>

Issues with printing . . . that is very interesting as that is a good part of a layout program is for, to get the idea on paper, or am I wrong?
Just a thought.

West

[godzookie2k]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>Soon InDesign will be worth it, but not yet... It's PDF tools rock, but there are still some issues with printing...</STRONG>

And thats why we call quark the...."standard"

[Ivan]

I heard Quark was developed here in Nashville by the Tenneesean newspaper company. I thought that was cool since it's very close to my house.

[zilmer]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>Soon InDesign will be worth it, but not yet... It's PDF tools rock, but there are still some issues with printing...</STRONG>

Eeemm... Like what? It's running all smoothly even under OS9. In fact it's perfect. i consider Quark dead. End of story.

[Prepress cat]

Originally posted by zilmer:
<STRONG>

Eeemm... Like what? It's running all smoothly even under OS9. In fact it's perfect. i consider Quark dead. End of story.</STRONG>

Its perfect only if you don't use a custom page size or have to print to an imagesetter or ctp device. And then there is that bogus Adobe ps driver, has to be one of the flakiest pieces of software they have written.
If Quark is dead then somebody forgot to tell the 50 customers who send Quark files to the 1 who sends Indesign.

[MikeM32]

Although this thread got seriously de-railed I must agree with Prepress cat 100% on InDesign vs. QuarkXPress. Once they get the issues with output from InDesign worked out then please give me a call.

I will give InDesign one thing, it sure beats the living crap out of PageMaker. Probably because it's closer to Quark though.

Just my 2¢ (and most of the print graphics industrys' as well).

Mike

[mitchell_pgh]

ON-TOPIC:
Photoshop 7 will be native.

OFF-TOPIC:
If you think Quark is dead, you need a wake up call in a big way! I know about 30 people waiting for Quark and about three other applications before moving to OSX.

If you said PageMaker is dead, I might say "maybe", but people are still using it! (PageMaker does sucks. Here is a little history on PageMaker... Adobe purchased it, and then tried to "fix" it to be more Adobe like, but they found that it would be easier if they just started from square one due to legacy code/versions etc., enters InDesign...)

Everyone who thinks InDesign is great comes from a web design background or is fresh out of college. GRANTED, InDesign makes me consider it more and more every version they come out with, but it's not worth it for me yet. I have NEVER found a printer that doesn't use Quark, but I have found many that say they "can do" InDesign - meaning they will send it somewhere to have it done, and won't do it in house.

[Orange Luna]

1) Photoshop 7 will rock. I've heard a lot of good things about it. When Apple cleans up some Carbon problems with 10.2(er 10.5?) this will be the application to have.

Also(unrelated):
2)Ivan, Quark is developed in Denver if I remember right - your post confused me a bit.

3)Quark may not be dead, it's got such a strong following, but if they don't show a decent OX product by years-end, larger migrations will begin. I love Quark personally, it's an excellently engineered product.

[redrockdes]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>Soon InDesign will be worth it, but not yet... It's PDF tools rock, but there are still some issues with printing...</STRONG>

I totally agree. For now I'm using InDesign for projects that don't need to be printed on a press -- for instance, when a PDF is the final product. I will keep Quark around for the other stuff. I was extremely disappointed when the Quark 5.0 I waited for so long was not even released ready for OSX. And the fact that Quark isn't saying WHEN it will be is kind of ominous. It could keep designers doing the Classic stagger for months or years! I think if that's the case, there will be a lot more pressure on print shops to adopt InDesign.

[idjeff]

Regarding Photoshop 7

I just saw a demo of PS7 on TechTV and WOW! The new brushes are going to be incredible for us who illustrate with Photoshop. The speed looked awesome too.

[baryonyx]

WARNING: OFF TOPIC

Everyone who thinks InDesign is great comes from a web design background or is fresh out of college.

I'd like to take issue with this statement and others that have been bandied about by folks are who are typing before they think.

1) InDesign is being adopted by all sorts of users, both experienced and fresh out of design school. They have many reasons for abandoning QuarkXpress. This includes Quark's long history of customer contempt; Quark's inability to adapt Xpress for OS X in a timely fashion (don't hold your breath--Quark's track record suggests later than end-of-year in spite of what they say); InDesign's vastly superior typographic engine; transparency...the list goes on.

2) InDesign 2.0 does not require Adobe's PS printer driver. Nor is printing problematic in this version. Furthermore, Adobe has stated that if any service bureau is having problems ripping InDesign docs, just give them a call and they'll get free support. They have a vested interest in making it work. It does.

3) Whoever said Quark is based in Denver, Colorado is correct. Tim Gill first started out by designing a program that was Xpress's predecessor on the Apple II. Nice guy--I met him several years ago. Shame he left the company.

4) QuarkXpress is far from dead. It is the de facto standard. However, InDesign is gaining ground by virtue of a) its feature set; b) its pricing structure and; c) its interface. let's face it--Quark charges too much for Xpress, both for the application and upgrades. Indesign's interface meshes well with Photoshop and Illustrator.

5) PageMaker is not dead, it's worse: irrelevant--for the last ten years.

I've been in this business for 16 years. I switched from QuarkXpress, a tool I've loved since I first started using it in 1990, to InDesign because Quark just doesn't have it together. Xpress costs too much and was costing me too much time trying to make PDFs of all my documents for client review. Further, I haven't forgotten how long it took them to come out with a PowerPC version of Xpress (2 years) and how long it's taken them to come out with Xpress 5.0 (4 years). Those are the actions of a company secure in its monopoly. InDesign is much-needed competition--I hope it gives Xpress a run for its life, because we as users will win in the end, no matter which app we choose.

Andy

[ 03-01-2002: Message edited by: baryonyx ]