[himself]

Anyone here try it out yet?

I tried to sign up, but it seems like Quark is sharing server space with the macnn forums...

[art_director]

I downloaded it last night. Haven't had but a few minutes to check it out. Initial observations:

• New bounding box treatment – feels fresh and new but it's nothing special or helpful.

• Vector graphics still look bitmapped regardless of preview resolution selected.

• Measurements Bar now has added functionality. This is spiffy and long overdue. In a nutshell, there's a little pop-up window that allows you to quickly jump between various menus (ie. type, box, etc.). This isn't revolutionary, it's catch-up in my mind. That said I like it. A lot.

• Kerning type is EXTREMELY SLOW (like a second for each change you make) when done from the keyboard with commands. I hope this is improved prior to release. Also, kerning up or down stream from where your cursor is placed is for shiit. If you were to kern between B and A in the word BACKSTAGE spaces between letters in the rest of the word would accordian as you went. That's not going to fly.

• Advanced Layout Properties window has been added. It appears to have just one use: allowing / disallowing the sharing of files. Not tested yet.

• Now you can split the window up into segments that show multiple documents / pages at the same time. For example, let's say you have a multi page layout. Now you could look at page 1 and page 34 at the same time rather than jumping back and forth. This will come in very handy for me. In fact, I would have given anything for it last week.

• Preview - Moving images, regardless of size, seems a little snappier than in v.6.5. Could be in my head or it could be the 6.5GB of love in my Tower of Power.

• Resizing type via the keyboard has a delay like the kerning mentioned earlier.

[art_director]

Fhat the wuck?

WHY can't Quark get it through their heads that we don't want their web features? It's all abut the page layout, dummy.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

Fhat the wuck?

WHY can't Quark get it through their heads that we don't want their web features? It's all abut the page layout, dummy.

NO KIDDING!!!

They should stop wasting their time/money on web as NOBODY (even quark users) are using quark for web design.

They need to focus on PRINT and PDF output... that's it. High resolution previews shouldn't be an issue in 2006. Ugh.

[art_director]

It defies logic and proves they don't listen to their consumer base.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

It defies logic and proves they don't listen to their consumer base.

They have downplayed the web part a bit over the last year or so I've noticed...

[art_director]

I haven't been paying attention. Have they been working the page layout angle?

[art_director]

p_c:

Have you taken v.7 for a test drive? Would love to hear your views.

[Westbo]

Hi all,

Well, I downloaded and just gave QXD 7 beta a quick spin. Here's what I have initally found:

1. Measurement bar has become a"catch-all" for all sorts of tools, offering character attributes, alignment, colors, clipping, masks, etc.

2. Type and color panels have transparency capabilities.

3. Drop shadows can "runaround" and are fully adjustable re: angles, skew, distance, opacity and blur etc.

4. Print Box completely revamped.

5. Files (projects are saved back to v6 via File>Export. Saving back to a v5 document has been eliminated.

6. Haven't figured out "Job Jackets Manager", "PPML Consumers" (what is PPML?) utilites.

7. Now has "Picture Effects" that apply Photoshop effects (blurs, contrast, curves and assorted filters)

8. What is "composition zone"? "sharing"?

I'm sure there's much more to uncover. So, my next step is to put QX7 through the motions of doing an actual project and see if anything blows up. I'll post additional impressions then.

W2

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

p_c:

Have you taken v.7 for a test drive? Would love to hear your views.

I downloaded it and did a 5 minute test:

100% cosmetic, but the splash screen is UGLY. The 6.5 splash screen is much nicer IMHO. The logo is also much uglier... again, this doesn't mater at all, but I thought it needed to be said.

1) I does look like they cleaned up some of the windows and how the program handles in general.

2) Layers seemed interesting...

3) The program seemed a bit faster overall.

I really need to give it a once over before I would weigh in with any real comments, but it is MUCH better than where the 6 bata was

[art_director]

Thanks for adding to the discussion guys. Between us we should have a good sense of how this dog lives up to its billing.

SHARING -- I believe this is the new feature where multiple people can be working on the same file. Haven't looked into it but read about it in an article. Sounds half-baked to me.

ICONS -- I noticed that all my Quark docs now have the v.7 logo / icon rather than the old v.6 version. That's unsettling given Quark's track record.

SPLASH -- Give 'em credit for giving he interns a cherry project.

[Leia's Left Bun]

Sounds like garbage.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by art_director

Thanks for adding to the discussion guys. Between us we should have a good sense of how this dog lives up to its billing.

SHARING -- I believe this is the new feature where multiple people can be working on the same file. Haven't looked into it but read about it in an article. Sounds half-baked to me.

ICONS -- I noticed that all my Quark docs now have the v.7 logo / icon rather than the old v.6 version. That's unsettling given Quark's track record.

SPLASH -- Give 'em credit for giving he interns a cherry project.

SHARING: Sharing is a horrible idea until you start getting into large documents where a few designers and a writer could be working on the same project at the same time (I'm not sure how many of you have used the Quark Publishing System, but we do on our large brochures [120 pages plus). I work on a few catalogs where we could be designing pages as a writer could be "wordsmithing" the copy remotely... bla bla bla. BUT it doesn't help the common user doing brochures, ads, etc. etc. In fact... could you imagine having a design novice boss that started tinkering with your files WHILE you were working on them?! I'll reserve judgement until I see what it can do... IMHO, it's going to be one of those "Oh, we can do that" features.

ICONS: Mine are all 7 now as well. I haven't noticed any issues... but who knows. I'm guessing I shouldn't have installed it but oh well.

SPLASH: They better upgrade it to something that's worth looking at. I liked the flower!

[siMac]

I gave it a quick spin earlier. First impression - it's still the same old Quark. No real interface changes, no killer features. It does seem less 'clunky' than 6.5, and the transparency and drop shadow features seem well implemented. High res preview is a vast improvement over the 6.5 (XTension-based) version, but still very slow (beta?). Photoshop style image filters are very slow to use, to the point of it probably being quicker to open the image in PS itself and edit it.

Overall: a step in the right direction, but still miles behind.

[Chuckit]

I've tried it a little bit, and thus far, I am very happy.

Having all the options for an element right in the measurements panel instead of five modal dialogs with a bunch of tabs each is very convenient. It shows that Quark is thinking about the interface. And it will definitely make training new people easier.

The best feature so far seems to be composition zone sharing. Being able to share content between documents is a godsend. We have several editors at my paper, and we all need to work on various parts of the paper simultaneously, so we have to divide it up into separate files. But because they're separate files, we have to copy and paste jumps manually. If a story changes position, we have to do it all over again. And if a copy editor needs to take a look at a story on a page, a section editor can't have the page open.

There are some speed issues right now that affect typing on my computer, but overall, I'm hopeful. That's something I haven't said about Quark in a while.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

The best feature so far seems to be composition zone sharing. Being able to share content between documents is a godsend. We have several editors at my paper, and we all need to work on various parts of the paper simultaneously, so we have to divide it up into separate files. But because they're separate files, we have to copy and paste jumps manually. If a story changes position, we have to do it all over again. And if a copy editor needs to take a look at a story on a page, a section editor can't have the page open.

I can see where that feature set would be of use to you. For the bulk of Q customers, ad agencies and design shops, this is useless and has a potential to really muck things up.

Anyone catch what they intend the upgrade price to be?

[Chuckit]

I thought ad agencies had mostly switched to Ad Creator and the like these days.

[himself]

I downloaded it a few days ago but haven't gotten around to installing it yet. So far, the reviews sound encouraging, but it still looks like Quark still has a lot of work to do to slow InDesign's momentum. But their effort is much appreciated, because (despite how much I like InDesign and the Adobe Creative Suite in general) a monopoly by Adobe in creative software is not good. I like competition.

[spatterson]

I've always like inDesign much better. Just a personal peference

[Weyland-Yutani]

To start off: I like Quark, always have.

My impressions after using it for a while are generally positive. I like the splash screen it is retro in a nice way, but obviously raw and probably not the final one. However I don't see much of it since Quark 7 starts up very fast. The installer is still the el-crappo VISE. That was not nice to see, but many large companies are still using it. Unfortunately.

Only some input issues in some windows with certain unicode keyboard layouts that I have encountered which I consider bad.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

InDesign is made by a development team that obviously listens to its consumers. Quark is made by a seemingly ego-driven group that listens to nobody but themselves. It's always been that way. For that reason I won't shed a tear if they lose market share to InDesign.

For proof of my claims I direct people to their shiit web features that nobody actually uses.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

InDesign is made by a development team that obviously listens to its consumers. Quark is made by a seemingly ego-driven group that listens to nobody but themselves. It's always been that way. For that reason I won't shed a tear if they lose market share to InDesign.

For proof of my claims I direct people to their shiit web features that nobody actually uses.

The web tools of QXP are no proof of what you claim. How could they be? Regardless, if you don't use them, then don't use them. It's not like they are in anyone's way.

I do page layout and I wouldn't have noticed there were any web features in QXP if not for the reason that I already knew about them.

Other than that, this thread is on the QXP 7 beta, not on InDesign. Please create your own thread if you want to discuss anything else than QXP 7, thanks

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

The fact remains that Quark the company doesn't listen to their consumer base. Never have. In recent years they've tried to improve on that front and have succeeded in varying degrees.

Their web features are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to Adobe's InDesign. Which, love it or hate it, is the better answer to Quark for OS X than anything Quark has put out for the OS.

Quark's ego, will in the end, be the end of the company unless they change things rather rapidly.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The web tools of QXP are no proof of what you claim. How could they be? Regardless, if you don't use them, then don't use them. It's not like they are in anyone's way.

Q: If nobody uses their web features then why have them?
A: Ego, just as I stated earlier.


W-Y: How long have you worked for Quark?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

The fact remains that Quark the company doesn't listen to their consumer base. Never have. In recent years they've tried to improve on that front and have succeeded in varying degrees.

Their web features are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to Adobe's InDesign. Which, love it or hate it, is the better answer to Quark for OS X than anything Quark has put out for the OS.

Quark's ego, will in the end, be the end of the company unless they change things rather rapidly.

While an interesting rant, it is completely off topic. Perhaps you aught to create your own thread if you want a soap-box?

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

While an interesting rant, it is completely off topic. Perhaps you aught to create your own thread if you want a soap-box?

cheers

W-Y

If you can't handle reading fact I can suggest some nifty sites about unicorns and the like.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

Q: If nobody uses their web features then why have them?
A: Ego, just as I stated earlier.


W-Y: How long have you worked for Quark?

You will have to pardon me if I don't just take your word for Quark's intentions. I don't bother with the web features of Quark myself, I'm stricktly into print-layout. I have never even tried the web-features of QuarkXPress and despite them being there since version 5, they've remained invisible and unused to me.

I really doubt they are any good, compared to other web-developing tools to tell you the truth. If you have tried them, why did you do so? Did you have to or did you really think that web-features of a layout app would probably be something worth trying out?

Answering your last question, I have never worked for Quark but I've worked with QuarkXPress for 8 years. Worked using QXP 4.11, 6.5 and now the 7.0 beta - although I use 6.5 for any production work. Of course I have tried alternatives to XPress, but none have measured up in ease of use, reliability, compatibility, speed and overall value. I will not settle for second best, so I choose QuarkXPress for that reason. That's how I make money.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

If you can't handle reading fact I can suggest some nifty sites about unicorns and the like.

I am curious, if you use QXP (if so what version) and if not, why did you download the QXP 7 beta?

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I am curious, if you use QXP (if so what version) and if not, why did you download the QXP 7 beta?

cheers

W-Y

Why does anyone download a beta?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

Why does anyone download a beta?

I am not terribly surprised to see that you are timid of discussing Quark. My guess is this: You don't use Quark, you never have, you felt like trolling and so you posted some drivel here?

Was I close?

This is a support forum where people come to get their technical questions answered. They are not looking for personal 'gut'-feelings about apps. This thread is about the QXP 7 beta and anything else is off-topic. You are insulting the OP, the people who come here for assistance and being a jerk.

For what reason? To what gain? The topic is still the QuarkXPress 7 beta. You, like anyone else, are perfectly free to write something constructive on the topic. It is never too late - unless of course you don't use Quark and then you really shouldn't be participating in these discussions.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

This is a support forum where people come to get their technical questions answered.

No, actually it's a thread dedicated to 'art and graphic design.' That's why it's titled 'art and graphic design.' That includes, but is not exclusive to, applications for art and graphic design. In fact, the vast majority of posts here have nothing to do with applications. If you read this forum on a regular basis you know that.

Now, before you make any more incorrect statements, I suggest you do a search of this portion of MacNN for QuarkXpress. You'll find very quickly that you're in the minority as a hugs and kisses to Quark sort of person. Set down your Kool-Aide™ and read up.

I don't use Quark? Hmmm...interesting theory. Incorrect but interesting.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

No, actually it's a thread dedicated to 'art and graphic design.' That's why it's titled 'art and graphic design.' That includes, but is not exclusive to, applications for art and graphic design. In fact, the vast majority of posts here have nothing to do with applications. If you read this forum on a regular basis you know that.

This is a thread dedicated to QXP 7 beta - as you would notice if you'd read the title of the thread. Scroll up, way up.

This forum is - like all forums outside the lounge - a place for technical discussions. There are always some fools who have nothing better to do than to increase the noise ratio just to ruin things for others of course, but that doesn't make them right.

Of course the vast majority of this forum has nothing to do with apps, not directly anyway. But this is a Macintosh forum and has this as a subforum. The point being, to discuss and get advice for Mac apps used in art and design, because this would be the place where Mac using artists and designers are likely to pop up. So, this is a rather technically oriented forum after all.

Your opinion pieces are interesting up to a point, but you should just get a blog.

Originally Posted by art_director

Now, before you make any more incorrect statements, I suggest you do a search of this portion of MacNN for QuarkXpress. You'll find very quickly that you're in the minority as a hugs and kisses to Quark sort of person. Set down your Kool-Aide™ and read up.

Hm. I use Quark and I've said I like the app. It makes me money. It does not fail at making me money. I think I'll have more of that kind of Kool-Aide. I couldn't care less if I'm in a minority, just because I'm successful and am making money. Heh.

Originally Posted by art_director

I don't use Quark? Hmmm...interesting theory. Incorrect but interesting.

Ah well, you could have said so then when I asked you. I did give you the benefit of the doubt, after all. Perhaps you would do better if you didn't discuss like a fool and show some respect? I'm sure then you'd get some back.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

...

[Kevin]

This is why I switched to Indesign.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is why I switched to Indesign.

Can anyone stay on topic?

W-Y

[chirpy22]

Sorry W-Y, but anytime there is a discussion of anything about Quark XPress on any forum anywhere InDesign will eventually come up. This is not the fault of those posting. It is the fault of Quark, who have let their customers suffer through trying to use a piece of garbage software product year after year without any updates to fix bugs, adding layers, or any other modern feature that has been around in other software since 1996 until they finally had competition from InDesign, which had more useful features in version 1.5 than XPress did in version 6.
XPress is a terrible program. Version 5.5 and 6 both corrupted a 20 and 40 page catalog file, respectively, that I was working on. And corrupted the back-up files as well. I had to rebuild them from scratch. At that point I said goodbye forever, as everyone else should. I constantly had font issues with it as well. Let Quark sink into the quagmire that they created for themselves. There is no reason to use this product if you own Photoshop and/or Illustrator. InDesign is years ahead.
Btw, XPress is the only program that ever corrupted a file for me. I will badmouth this company and its software every chance I get!

[chirpy22]

Yeah, and why is Quark releasing a beta in the first place? To try to build some hype and let people know that now they are finally working on something. How long was it between versions 5.5 and 6? 3 or 4 years? I can't remember now. And 6 was such a piece of garbage that people removed it from their computers and continued to use 5.5.
Maybe Quark 7 will finally be a decent peice of software? However, it's too late. The majority of the design community has already made the switch.

[kyles_mac]

Since most of the companies have made the switch to InDesign, since mine as as well, it surely doesn't seem like this program will create any need for anyone to switch back.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

Yeah, and why is Quark releasing a beta in the first place? To try to build some hype and let people know that now they are finally working on something. How long was it between versions 5.5 and 6? 3 or 4 years? I can't remember now. And 6 was such a piece of garbage that people removed it from their computers and continued to use 5.5.
Maybe Quark 7 will finally be a decent peice of software? However, it's too late. The majority of the design community has already made the switch.

QX6 appeared 2003. Indeed the Quarkies are quirky and have demonstrated arrogance for years. I hold no interest in such posturing. Everyone has demonstrated a 'tude one time or another. I recall Pagemaker back in the Aldus days having a similar attitude when the Quark upstarts appeared. Ultimately, it's the performance of the software that matters. And let's not forget InDesign had some major issues with its first release. Adobe has a reputation of being quite arrogant as well.

Releasing betas for consumer testing is a very common practice with software developers. It's a legitimate way to get user feedback. Quark is no different. QX7 has some nice features and some serious bugs. It is a beta after all. I downloaded and have tried it knowing there would be problems. I'll let the Quarkies know my experiences with no expectations. QX 5 and 6 were buggie. I remember reverting back to previous versions when both QX 4 and QX 5 were released. Most issues were eventually resolved with their .5 releases. Quark's historical mistake has always been releasing software way before it should have. I won't beat them up with releasing betas. Whether they listen or not is yet to be determined.

[Chuckit]

Adobe may have an attitude, but at least they make good stuff to be proud of. InDesign now is miles beyond the first version. Even Photoshop, despite being darn near perfect (in my opinion) years ago, has been improved more than Quark has in the same time.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Adobe may have an attitude, but at least they make good stuff to be proud of. InDesign now is miles beyond the first version. Even Photoshop, despite being darn near perfect (in my opinion) years ago, has been improved more than Quark has in the same time.

My point ChuckIt is every software developer has taken a turn "at the stick" and certainly demonstrated arrogance at one time or another. I'd venture to say Quark people are certainly as proud of their products as Adobe is of theirs.

I could go on at length (but won't) at some of the major bugs Adobe released with all their apps (including PS) at one time or another and were quite arrogant about. Most they did fix but not without much pain. Just visit their forums. They too have their full share of unhappy users.

We can all "Monday morning" Quark et., al. 'til we're blue in the face. However, Quark has many supporters as well as detractors and for now, continues to dominate the marketplace. The best thing that can happen is the continued success of InDesign. It will ultimately force the Quarkies to either get their s*** together or lose.

[chirpy22]

Quark does not continue to dominate the marketplace. Perhaps in print houses, but not in the design community. And almost all printers I deal with today prefer PDFs to native file formats for printing anyway.
While I don't deny Adobe's arrogance at times, they do have an incredible marketing strategy with the Creative Suite. This has put the nail in the coffin for Quark. You can upgrade to an entire suite of prducts from Adobe from Photoshop (which every designer has) for the same price as buying the full version of XPress and only a little more than upgrading XPress.
Quark has already lost. They will not recover. Every designer I know hates them with a passion because of their lack of updates, their high upgrade costs and their poor tech support.
When version 6.5 of XPress was released I went to an Apple seminar. There were reps from both Adobe and Quark there. InDesign CS was just released as well. The Quark rep went on first and spent literally 15 minutes talking about the incredible layers feature in Quark. Now, first of all, I believe layers were added in version 6, although very clunky, so it wasn't even a new feature. Secondly, he is talking to a room full of designers and printers that have been using design software with layers for a decade already. Quark has the gall to say how awesome this new feature is? Gimme a break.
When the Adobe speaker went on the first thing he said was, "I won't get into using layers because they've been in InDesign since the beginning, and every other Adobe product for many years now, so I won't bore you with that."
So, you guys can all download the Quark 7 beta and if you like it pay for your upgrades, but I can guarantee that the company will not be around much longer unless they make some serious changes. Especially since Adobe now has all Macromedia products under its belt as well.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

Quark does not continue to dominate the marketplace. Perhaps in print houses, but not in the design community. And almost all printers I deal with today prefer PDFs to native file formats for printing anyway.
While I don't deny Adobe's arrogance at times, they do have an incredible marketing strategy with the Creative Suite. This has put the nail in the coffin for Quark. You can upgrade to an entire suite of prducts from Adobe from Photoshop (which every designer has) for the same price as buying the full version of XPress and only a little more than upgrading XPress.
Quark has already lost. They will not recover. Every designer I know hates them with a passion because of their lack of updates, their high upgrade costs and their poor tech support.
When version 6.5 of XPress was released I went to an Apple seminar. There were reps from both Adobe and Quark there. InDesign CS was just released as well. The Quark rep went on first and spent literally 15 minutes talking about the incredible layers feature in Quark. Now, first of all, I believe layers were added in version 6, although very clunky, so it wasn't even a new feature. Secondly, he is talking to a room full of designers and printers that have been using design software with layers for a decade already. Quark has the gall to say how awesome this new feature is? Gimme a break.
When the Adobe speaker went on the first thing he said was, "I won't get into using layers because they've been in InDesign since the beginning, and every other Adobe product for many years now, so I won't bore you with that."
So, you guys can all download the Quark 7 beta and if you like it pay for your upgrades, but I can guarantee that the company will not be around much longer unless they make some serious changes. Especially since Adobe now has all Macromedia products under its belt as well.

Well Chirpy, I think most of us are in agreement with Quark's faux pas and even with the new stuff added in QX7, they still don't seem to get it. For example, why the h*** would I ever want multiple people simultaneously working the same file? I don't agree with your assessment of Quark's share of market. Its strength very much remains in print and publishing and the design community affected as such is still very much Quark oriented. Regarding Adobe/Macromedia, Quark's HTML market share really just isn't there to begin with to even consider it being a factor.

[art_director]

I'm afraid we won't see the entire industry migrate to InDesign any time soon. It's expensive for a number of reasons:

- retrain people on the new app

- legacy documents would need to be recreated in InDesign

– upgrade costs - though chirpy is right, it's cheaper to buy CS than it is to get Quack

I think what we'll see is Quark doing a nose dive and being bought out by Adobe. They run a smarter company and make a better product.

In the 17 years I've been using Quark I have been regularly disappointed by their support, lack of new features and general slow moves 'upgrades' which, as has been pointed out, often are just to catch up with the competition.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

I'm afraid we won't see the entire industry migrate to InDesign any time soon. It's expensive for a number of reasons:

- retrain people on the new app

- legacy documents would need to be recreated in InDesign

– upgrade costs - though chirpy is right, it's cheaper to buy CS than it is to get Quack

I think what we'll see is Quark doing a nose dive and being bought out by Adobe. They run a smarter company and make a better product.

In the 17 years I've been using Quark I have been regularly disappointed by their support, lack of new features and general slow moves 'upgrades' which, as has been pointed out, often are just to catch up with the competition.

Hey A-D, isn't ironic, these are the very same problems that once upon a time allowed Quark to steal away the biz from Pagemaker. History ignored is history repeated. Hmmmmmm.

W2

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Westbo

Hey A-D, isn't ironic, these are the very same problems that once upon a time allowed Quark to steal away the biz from Pagemaker. History ignored is history repeated. Hmmmmmm.

W2

LMFAO, yes, it's ironic as can be.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

I will badmouth this company and its software every chance I get!

Whatever, but could you make your own thread and put your soapbox there. Your thoughts on Quark in general or Adobe or InDesign isn't welcome in this thread. You are de-railing it.

On topic:

I've reported some minor bugs every once in a while since I've joined the beta program and I look forward to see the second beta due soon. It will be a universal binary too, so doubly exciting.

The beta in its current form is no golden-master material.

@Westbo

Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I agree with most of what you write, but don't waste too much energy on the Quark naysayers. Very few of them are using Quark by choice and some aren't even using Quark.

Either way, I challenge them to start a QXP vs. ID thread or shut up.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Either way, I challenge them to start a QXP vs. ID thread or shut up.

ID pertains to this discussion whether you like it or not.

[Westbo]

duplicate

[Westbo]

OK all... we're all suppose to be buds here, remember?

Indeed this thread's topic started with a question regarding if anyone has tried QX7 beta. But like all threads, it evolves. People are gonna jump in and share their thoughts. Noticing the number of posts some of us have, I'm sure some of the more experienced members know this.

Everyone of couse knows we are not going agree on everything nor will we be able to convince the others how right or wrong they or we are. A good diverse dialog is a good thing and healthy as well. I'd like to ask that we keep it all user friendly.

Enough of the soap box... back to the thread!

W2