[art_director]

W2:

You're absolutely right, I let the incendiary posts of others cloud my better judgement. No more need be said.

[chris v]

I don't use Quark for too much -- mainly film output. As a t-shirt printer, I don't work too much with text. It's mainly .eps vector files and tiffs. I've had it up to *here* trying to get decent spot channels out of either InDesign or Quark, and have taken lately to just splitting the channels and putting my bump plates on seperate pages, as greyscale files. It's a freakin' pain. Sometimes, Quark's PSD Import works, though, and I thank them for trying, but sometimes, it just doesn't. I'm sick to death of getting calls from my film output people telling me "the spot red came out blank." Argh.

Here's a question for you layout gurus -- what do people who need CMYK + bump plates do? The previews of DCS 2.0 files are too poor to do precise positioning, if say, you've got a tiff with a vector EPS placed on top of it. Indesign will do duotones, but doesn't work with spot channnels in PSD files, either. I really feel like the red-headded stepchild here, sometimes.

And yeah -- a few things about Quark -- why, at version seven can we not chain together the % fields in the measurements bar so that we don't have to type the size twice when we want to enlarge a placed image proportionally? Also, why can't we just select and drag the image with a direct select tool to resize? I'm so used to that being SOP in 'other' design programs that I'm frusterated by it every single time I launch Quark.

I'm glad to see things like background color & whatnot now in the measurements bar instead of buried in menus, but what's with the opacity feature? It seems to only apply to the background color of a picture box, and not the placed image. Or am I missing something?

Signed,
Underwhelmed in Texas.

[chris v]

Oh, here's one. Registration & crop marks. I'm a t-shirt printer. We don't crop t-shirts. Can I please have seperate radio buttons for reg marks and crop marks?

No, I can't.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by chris v

Also, why can't we just select and drag the image with a direct select tool to resize?

Hold command (or command-option-shift if you want to keep it proportional) and you can.

[art_director]

A request of the beta testers in the house...

Can you try exporting a large ps file from the beta? I'm looking to determine if Quark has addressed the 2GB shortcoming in this 'feature'.

[normdzn]

Wait a minute, what happened to the QXP vs. ID argument?? It was getting interesting, about a page worth!! Hah! PEACE, my fellow designers!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

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

You mean, you're obstinately going to continue your trolling in this thread? I feel sorry for people like you.

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by chris v

Oh, here's one. Registration & crop marks. I'm a t-shirt printer. We don't crop t-shirts. Can I please have seperate radio buttons for reg marks and crop marks?

No, I can't.

Dear underwhelmed in Texas,

I feel for your pain and agree with what you have said. Interesting point about the cropmarks and t-shirts. Have you suggested the seperation of the registration/cropmarks to Quark? QXP 7 isn't feature frozen yet. It doesn't hurt anyway.

I am fairly happy with what I've seen so far in QXP 7, it is a further refinement to version 6. I will reserve criticsm of the QXP 7 beta until I've seen public beta 2. It should be out soon.

I probably won't be able to get my hands on the release version until next fall.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

deleted

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Interesting point about the cropmarks and t-shirts.

An interesting point or just plain common sense?

You account people...

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

An interesting point or just plain common sense?

You account people...

Interesting because I haven't ever thought it would be an issue. I never print anything to t-shirts.

What accountant people

cheers

W-Y

[normdzn]

wow...

[normdzn]

...you guys still going at it, i see. Cool.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Interesting because I haven't ever thought it would be an issue. I never print anything to t-shirts.

what type of work do you do?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

what type of work do you do?

Answer my question and I'll to you the courtesy of answering this one.

cheers

W-Y

[Exizl del Fuego]

I have to admit that I've held a grudge against Quark even before I started using XPress. Prior to doing any design/production work I did tech support/administration. Every time I had to install QuarkXPress I wanted to gouge my eyes out. Why does ANY application need no less than three 40-odd character-digit activation codes just to get the damned thing to run?

That said, I've been doing production work on some 400+ page catalogs for clients who use QuarkXPress and I've been impressed with how well QX6.5 has handled the documents (documents split into 50ish page segments). I've always tried to steer clear of Quark and push for InDesign on projects, but now that I actually sit down and use the software, it's really not all that bad. So I've read this discussion with some interest.

One thing that piqued my interest was this:

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

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.

Just from Quark's past response to the market, I honestly didn't expect a universal version of QX until QX8, years down the road. If QX7 beta2 is in fact a universal binary, does that mean that QX7 will actually be solid OSX app? QX6.5, even though an OSX release, has the feel of an OS9 app masquerading in OSX. It feels fragile, and in practice IS fragile. Random crashes and corrupted files have me saving my work like it's 1995. Aside from the installation process, this has been the only major misgiving I've had about QuarkXPress. I am therefore cautiously optimistic that QX7 will finally address these issues.

But then there's my main beef with Quark, and it has nothing to do with how XPress as an app functions. It has to do with the most oppressive and consumer-unfriendly licensing scheme in the history of the market. You just paid top dollar for this software only to be treated like an assumed criminal whereby you must jump through hoops to prove your innocence. And woe be it to those who upgrade to a newer computer and have to re-install it. It's absurd and insulting. And no matter how much I might come to like the application or how much work I'm going to be able to cover, so long as this issue exists QuarkXPress will forever leave a bad taste in my mouth.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Yes, QXP 7 will be a Universal Binary, working natively on both PPC Macs and Intel Macs. The private beta 2 is already out an it is Universal. Quark announced that XPress would be a Universal Binary back at Macworld last January.

I share you surprise, I did *not* expect them to be so quick to adapt the Intel processors, judging by how the company treated OS X to begin with.

HOWEVER, I have tried the beta of QXP 7 and it is still QXP. In the sense that the interface hasn't really changed. The looks have improved *slightly* and it is certainly a lot more OS X like than ever before.

Still, I wouldn't knock it until you try it. I have never been pleased with how QXP looks on OS X, but I have been pleased with how it performs. It has always been damn fast and this one is the fastest yet. It prints fast, it displays fast and it displays your work through the Quartz PS rendering layer, so it is a faithful rendering of what comes out of the printer. Finally!

It has good support for Open Type as well, a PDF engine that works, transparency capabilities and a rewritten type engine. All in all it I'd say this is an update that feature-wise equals QXP to the competition and brings Quark up to speed.

I absoloutly agree with how stupid and annoying the registration and activation process is. I hate it - but I forget it unless reminded. Like now. Sheesh. I share your pain.

The thing is, Quark is a different company now. It used to be run by a very stupid little man who nearly drove it to the ground. A couple of years ago he left Quark after running it for more than a decade and things like free on-line customer service, more frequent updates and public betas started coming out of Quark. It has changed, and it has changed for the better. I should know, I've used their products for years and I hardly recongnize them now.

I think competition is something that benefits us users first and foremost. Before ID QXP was stagnating and now it is moving - full force. Yeah, I'm glad there is competition.

I'm also certain that people who blindingly hate QXP don't use it - probably never did. Those mildly annoyed, yeah those are real QXP users. Simply because while the app could be a lot better it just isn't as bad as some would claim it to be.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Exizl del Fuego

Every time I had to install QuarkXPress I wanted to gouge my eyes out.

When I bought my copy of QX v.5 the installer CD wouldn't even work in my PowerBook. Quark sent me, not one, not two, not three, but four different installer CDs – not one of them worked. Turns out the printing they used on their CDs prevented the drive from spinning the CD fast enough. At the time I was using just one machine – that PB. Talk about a pain in the azz.

Your mention on installing Q made me remember the pain.

QX v.6 and that activation key business is crap.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

...a PDF engine that works...

So long as you don't mind fuzzy PDFs that are larger than the original files.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The thing is, Quark is a different company now.

I would agree they've made some improvements as a company, listening to the customers isn't among them.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I should know, I've used their products for years and I hardly recongnize them now.

Hmmmm....been using Quark for many years and, IMO, they haven't made that big a change.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm also certain that people who blindingly hate QXP don't use it - probably never did.

Your opinion in this area and my experience do not jive.

I'm a freelancer who works for ad agencies, design shops and directly w clients around the US. Everywhere I go people complain about Quark. They hate the slow adaptation of new features, the poor customer support, the abusive cost of 'upgrades' and the general crap that has been Quark since v.4. Most every person I come across who works with the app would prefer to switch to ID. It's the bean counters who look at the costs of retraining staff (creative and production) and rebuilding old files who put the hammer down on a change. Heck, even sys admins want to move over to Adobe for page layout apps.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Interesting because I haven't ever thought it would be an issue. I never print anything to t-shirts.

this is an interesting comment. whether you've printed to t-shirts or not a moment's consideration would reveal there's nothing to crop, hence no need for crop marks.

when printing t-shirts you would be wise to size the art as you want it printed and, in the best case, provide exact placement so as to avoid mistakes / miscommunication. this can be done many ways. i've supplied diagrams and i've supplied a t-shirt w a laser of my art attached and position, for example.

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

What accountant people

for someone who goes on about his / her experience w quark one would think such a question wouldn't pass your lips. after all, it's basic production, whether a t-shirt or diaper. iow, it sounded like words coming from an ae.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I think competition is something that benefits us users first and foremost.

competition is good, it's even helped q get off its arse.

whether q is moving @ full force remains to be seen. in my mind they'd be better served to take the resources presently devoted to web features and put them on their bread and butter – print page layout. that's where adobe kills q, they understand one app cannot be all things to all people and they play up strengths in the various segments of the market. unfortunately q isn't as smart in that area.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

When I bought my copy of QX v.5 the installer CD wouldn't even work in my PowerBook. Quark sent me, not one, not two, not three, but four different installer CDs – not one of them worked. Turns out the printing they used on their CDs prevented the drive from spinning the CD fast enough. At the time I was using just one machine – that PB. Talk about a pain in the azz.

Your mention on installing Q made me remember the pain.

QX v.6 and that activation key business is crap.

Ah, this all brings back such great memories. Not too many years back, Quark's solution to a very rampant piracy problem was the on-line activation. (Anyone remember "Hackers Helper"?). Intended to stop multiple installs, it also killed reinstalls. If your machine bombed requiring a system-wide reinstall, you were SOL. Any attempt to reinstall QX on the very same machine required a call to Quark. After a lengthy interrogation, you would receive a new and very long activation code. A bit heavy handed to say the least but it was in keeping with the industry paranoia of the time. Shame on me for needing to reinstall. I felt like I was being grilled by the school principal for chewing gum. OK... I can live that. If I had $millions invested in software development, I too may be a bit intense about piracy.

But all that didn't frost me. What did was this:

Installing QX6 on a second CPU such as a laptop (as I had wanted to do) was also a no-no and required a supplemental $75 licensing fee, which I begrudgingly paid. Seeing the error of their ways along with the marketing and PR debacle it caused, Quark ultimately reversed this policy and thus allowed an owner of a license to install QX on one additonal CPU. I never did get my $75 back.

BTW happy campers, With the release of CS 2, Adobe requires a new activation code after 5 reinstalls. It seems the more things change the more the stay the same.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Westbo

Ah, this all brings back such great memories. Not too many years back, Quark's solution to a very rampant piracy problem was the on-line activation. (Anyone remember "Hackers Helper"?). Intended to stop multiple installs, it also killed reinstalls. If your machine bombed requiring a system-wide reinstall, you were SOL. Any attempt to reinstall QX on the very same machine required a call to Quark. After a lengthy interrogation, you would receive a new and very long activation code. A bit heavy handed to say the least but it was in keeping with the industry paranoia of the time. Shame on me for needing to reinstall. I felt like I was being grilled by the school principal for chewing gum. OK... I can live that. If I had $millions invested in software development, I too may be a bit intense about piracy.

But all that didn't frost me. What did was this:

Installing QX6 on a second CPU such as a laptop (as I had wanted to do) was also a no-no and required a supplemental $75 licensing fee, which I begrudgingly paid. Seeing the error of their ways along with the marketing and PR debacle it caused, Quark ultimately reversed this policy and thus allowed an owner of a license to install QX on one additonal CPU. I never did get my $75 back.

BTW happy campers, With the release of CS 2, Adobe requires a new activation code after 5 reinstalls. It seems the more things change the more the stay the same.

Oh, I know the pain of which you speak. I was in the middle of a move w / disks and al in storage when the hammer fell for me. That was hell on earth...the Q folk were less-than-helpful on top of it all.

Damnn, hadn't heard about the Adobe restiction, that blows. I understand the desire to protect company assets but there has to be a better way. Let's face it, these *cough* security measures are pointless in the grand scheme.

[chirpy22]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm also certain that people who blindingly hate QXP don't use it - probably never did. Those mildly annoyed, yeah those are real QXP users. Simply because while the app could be a lot better it just isn't as bad as some would claim it to be.

I have used XPress since 1995 and version 3.1, I believe it was, and up through 6.5. The thing that really annoys me using OS X is all the font issues. None of my other apps have issues with fonts, just XPress. It will sometimes not find the right font one day and other days finds it just fine. In fact, smetimes this happens on the same day. I know that my font IDs are not conflicting. This was on multiple systems at multiple companies.
Also, something that really bothers me, is that little faux font syle bar in the control palette. Has XPress 7 removed that thing? It causes nothing but problems and is a big no-no in graphic design to begin with. If you are going to make a font bold, then use the bold style of that font, don't click that little button in the control palette.
And have they changed the way layers show up in the document? When you select that show layers option it puts these huge colored flags on every object on the page. It makes it really confusing to try to find what you are looking for. Especially if it is a small bit of text or a small graphic. It is literally covered up by that huge color flag. Please tell me they changed that?

I am not going to judge XPress 7, as I have not used it. However, what features in it would make me WANT to switch back to using it over InDesign?
I am all for using the best software for the job. Heck, I used Macromedia FreeHand for years instead of Illustrator. In fact, I used it instead of XPress many times too.

[siMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It has good support for Open Type as well, a PDF engine that works, transparency capabilities and a rewritten type engine. All in all it I'd say this is an update that feature-wise equals QXP to the competition of two years ago and brings Quark up to speed.

Fixed™

Have you ever actually used InDesign? You seem to have the typical Quark user's opinion of the differences between the two programs - namely that ID is all about PDF and transparency.

That's not it. That's not it at all.

In many ways this is like the OS9 vs OSX debate - many OS9ers could only see the superficial differences and refused to accept that OSX is leaps and bounds ahead.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by siMac

Fixed™

Have you ever actually used InDesign? You seem to have the typical Quark user's opinion of the differences between the two programs - namely that ID is all about PDF and transparency.

That's not it. That's not it at all.

In many ways this is like the OS9 vs OSX debate - many OS9ers could only see the superficial differences and refused to accept that OSX is leaps and bounds ahead.

Jeez... this is starting to sound like some kind of recovery program: "My name is W2 and I'm a Quark user."

Here's my two cents: It seems to be human nature to defend decisions, be it a choice of car, politics, religion, a point of view and apparentely what software you use. I'm continually amazed at the intensity of the Quark vs InDesign dialog that pops up anytime either is discussed and I just don't get it. I could care less about the two corporate parents. And please don't drag in that OS9 vs OSX analogy, it's not at all similar. No matter how hard the effort, nobody is going to admit they're idiots if they don't convert. So, despite the amusing rants, get over it and move on.

Enough of my ranting. Back to the original topic: I do use both programs, but for the most part I've been using Quark. I know many of you have major issues with it. Perhaps my needs are not as complex and demanding. It they were, maybe I'd be PO'd as well. But, for better or worse, QX has been my "go to" app for certain projects. Yes, it has bugs and this latest beta is no different. It also has new features. OBJECTIVELY: what are they? Are they useful? What do you like or dislike?

W2

[art_director]

Allow me to interject a humorous yet off-topic note:

The top of this page has two text ads:

Quark to InDesign

-- and --

InDesign Conference

[greenamp]

Give me InDesign over Quark any day.

[Westbo]

Originally Posted by art_director

Allow me to interject a humorous yet off-topic note:

The top of this page has two text ads:

Quark to InDesign

-- and --

InDesign Conference

OK, OK... I give up! Uncle! Rant away.

[chirpy22]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

Also, something that really bothers me, is that little faux font syle bar in the control palette. Has XPress 7 removed that thing? It causes nothing but problems and is a big no-no in graphic design to begin with. If you are going to make a font bold, then use the bold style of that font, don't click that little button in the control palette.
And have they changed the way layers show up in the document? When you select that show layers option it puts these huge colored flags on every object on the page. It makes it really confusing to try to find what you are looking for. Especially if it is a small bit of text or a small graphic. It is literally covered up by that huge color flag. Please tell me they changed that?

Anyone know about these things?

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by siMac

Fixed™

Have you ever actually used InDesign? You seem to have the typical Quark user's opinion of the differences between the two programs - namely that ID is all about PDF and transparency.

That's not it. That's not it at all.

In many ways this is like the OS9 vs OSX debate - many OS9ers could only see the superficial differences and refused to accept that OSX is leaps and bounds ahead.

Oh yes. I have used InDesign. It is in no way leaps and bounds ahead of QXP. That's just wishful thinking.

Now, I don't like to use ID. It is to me not a good tool IMO and I trust Quark better when it comes to output. Years of experience have tought me this.

Personally, I can appreciate transparency, but it isn't a dealbreaker because it can be achieved in different ways, i.e. in Photoshop. PDFs are fine for final output but only when distilled from Acrobat. Even ID's PDF machine is flaky.

No pro would ever use anything but Distiller to make a final PDF. Other than that, PDFs are not really useful but they are a relatively popular vector format. Unfortuately. It's just that for professional grade stuff, PDFs aren't reliable enough. They are the HTML of print and it does depend on the reader how the PDF is interpreted.

Point being, if you don't use Adobe then who knows how accurate the PDF will become. Similar to Internet Explorer and Safari. Safari will always be playing catch-up in HTML, but it is damn better browser than IE.

If printers want it, I'll provide a PDF and then it doesn't matter one squat what app you use. ID or QXP.

Also this is nothing like OS 9 vs. OS X. I can't really be bothered to explain this any further. Freelance designers and Adobe nerds have really drained my interest in this discussion.

To hear people complaining about incredibly daft things such as difficult registration and CDs being to heavy to spin in drive and the repeated and completely non-specific "quark doesn't listen to its customers" mantra just drives any discussion down.

Once an app is registered, it needs not be done again. While registration is boring it is no worse than on CS2. Yeah that thing from Adobe or Office 2004.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Other than that, PDFs are not really useful but they are a relatively popular vector format. Unfortuately. It's just that for professional grade stuff, PDFs aren't reliable enough. They are the HTML of print and it does depend on the reader how the PDF is interpreted.

PDFs are useless. Hmmmm...I've used them to exchange work with clients for years and they've been extremely helpful. They've saved lots of money and untold time on numerous projects. Many clients I've used them with are large multinational corporations that are household names.

Your comment about 'professional grade stuff' and reliability reveals a tenuous grasp of the business of advertising and design. PDFs aren't only used for printing, they're layouts used for exchange of concepts, layouts, etc. Ad agencies and design shops have been doing it for years with clients the world 'round and it's made for good business, faster turnaround times and higher profits for agencies. Also, many a final ad is printed from PDF. It's not the preffered route but it is used.

You'd be better served sticking to your Quark arguments.

[Chuckit]

We've had to re-register Quark. It was a pain in the ass. Made me just want to get a cracked copy and be done with it.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

We've had to re-register Quark. It was a pain in the ass. Made me just want to get a cracked copy and be done with it.

Same here -– after a clean reinstall. Had to wait on hold with the Quark call center in Bangalore, India for an abbreviated eternity. Complete pain.

[Exizl del Fuego]

Once an app is registered, it needs not be done again. While registration is boring it is no worse than on CS2. Yeah that thing from Adobe or Office 2004.

That's an incredibly short-sighted assumption. Unfortunately, it's exactly the same assumption Quark's made.

Further, activation and registration on most any app is indeed boring. However Quark's is painful. I have Adobe CS -- not CS2 -- but things must have gone dramatically downhill if CS2's process is no better than Quark's.

[chirpy22]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

Also, something that really bothers me, is that little faux font syle bar in the control palette. Has XPress 7 removed that thing? It causes nothing but problems and is a big no-no in graphic design to begin with. If you are going to make a font bold, then use the bold style of that font, don't click that little button in the control palette.
And have they changed the way layers show up in the document? When you select that show layers option it puts these huge colored flags on every object on the page. It makes it really confusing to try to find what you are looking for. Especially if it is a small bit of text or a small graphic. It is literally covered up by that huge color flag. Please tell me they changed that?

Yeah, ummm, so has anyone that is using the beta 7 noticed if they changed these? W-Y? I'm just curious.

[art_director]

There's a shot of the new measurements bar on page 29.

http://www.quark.com/products/xpress...tsnew_qxp7.pdf

[siMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

PDFs are fine for final output but only when distilled from Acrobat. Even ID's PDF machine is flaky.

No pro would ever use anything but Distiller to make a final PDF. Other than that, PDFs are not really useful but they are a relatively popular vector format. Unfortuately. It's just that for professional grade stuff, PDFs aren't reliable enough. They are the HTML of print and it does depend on the reader how the PDF is interpreted.

Point being, if you don't use Adobe then who knows how accurate the PDF will become.

BS.

As a prepress professional with over ten years experience in the trade I feel more than qualified to call this comment for what it is.

PDFs are incredibly versatile and when combined with ISO standards (PDF/X, etc.) are the best format for document exchange in a prepress environment (not to mention electronic publishing purposes and secure document exchanges). All modern RIPs can process native PDFs with the added advantage of shorter ripping times since the files are already optimised. The PDF format offers the ability to certify documents and track/prevent changes, and is capable of carrying supplementary data such as printing specs and trapping info.

Designers benefit from being able to use any PDF compatible application on the platform of their choice to create their artwork, while printers benefit from not having to maintain and upgrade a vast array of graphics programs in order to maintain compatibilty.

ID's PDF engine will produce perfect PDFs and actually has avantages over Distiller - PDF creation is faster and better optimisation is possible by omitting the 'legacy' Postscript stage.

I would like to know in which situations you have found PDFs to be unreliable as in my experience PDFs are a godsend.

RIP PS.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by siMac

BS.

As a prepress professional with over ten years experience in the trade I feel more than qualified to call this comment for what it is.

PDFs are incredibly versatile and when combined with ISO standards (PDF/X, etc.) are the best format for document exchange in a prepress environment (not to mention electronic publishing purposes and secure document exchanges). All modern RIPs can process native PDFs with the added advantage of shorter ripping times since the files are already optimised. The PDF format offers the ability to certify documents and track/prevent changes, and is capable of carrying supplementary data such as printing specs and trapping info.

Designers benefit from being able to use any PDF compatible application on the platform of their choice to create their artwork, while printers benefit from not having to maintain and upgrade a vast array of graphics programs in order to maintain compatibilty.

ID's PDF engine will produce perfect PDFs and actually has avantages over Distiller - PDF creation is faster and better optimisation is possible by omitting the 'legacy' Postscript stage.

I would like to know in which situations you have found PDFs to be unreliable as in my experience PDFs are a godsend.

RIP PS.

I have an experience matching yours and I stand by my summary of PDFs. That is, it is a propriatary Adobe format designed in a similar spirit as HTML. It is not one standard but several. PDF is at version 1.6 now.

The only advantage PDFs offer is to printers and designers concerning the final output. With a PDF I am content with and a printer with the latest Acrobat then things are good.

However a PDF made in say Quark and printed in say Preview in OS X.. well. It's not going to be as picture perfect as you have described the glorious PDFs.

That's because PDFs are not just PDFs anymore than HTML is HTML. Depends on the interpreter and the distiller. It is not standard unless you use *Adobe* only set. That's PDF and I don't like it, except for final output. Where it belongs.

cheers

W-Y

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I have an experience matching yours and I stand by my summary of PDFs. That is, it is a propriatary Adobe format designed in a similar spirit as HTML. It is not one standard but several. PDF is at version 1.6 now.

The only advantage PDFs offer is to printers and designers concerning the final output. With a PDF I am content with and a printer with the latest Acrobat then things are good.

However a PDF made in say Quark and printed in say Preview in OS X.. well. It's not going to be as picture perfect as you have described the glorious PDFs.

That's because PDFs are not just PDFs anymore than HTML is HTML. Depends on the interpreter and the distiller. It is not standard unless you use *Adobe* only set. That's PDF and I don't like it, except for final output. Where it belongs.

cheers

W-Y

Woo-Tang: You're in over your head. Scurry back to the rock you came out from under.

[normdzn]

Originally Posted by siMac

BS.

ID's PDF engine will produce perfect PDFs and actually has avantages over Distiller - PDF creation is faster and better optimisation is possible by omitting the 'legacy' Postscript stage.

I would like to know in which situations you have found PDFs to be unreliable as in my experience PDFs are a godsend.

RIP PS.

Actually, I'm no pro but I would like to say that I have been sending ID pdfs to printers for projects that are one to two color and it seems that printers generally have no problems with them especially when optimized "pdf X-1a". Other than that, on occassion, ID would have difficulty embedding fonts. This is when I go through Distiller to make the pdfs. FYI.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

Yeah, ummm, so has anyone that is using the beta 7 noticed if they changed these? W-Y? I'm just curious.

No, unfortuantely the faux font-styles are still there in QXP 7. What is more unfortunate is that they don't work in combination with OpenType, even if the correct OT glyphs are available.

As for colored flags, well the way layers are indicated is by coloring the frame of the object. There is no other obvious indication.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by art_director

Woo-Tang: You're in over your head. Scurry back to the rock you came out from under.

Why did you quote me?

cheers

W-Y

[chris v]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Hold command (or command-option-shift if you want to keep it proportional) and you can.

Hey, thanks! That works. I get the impressing that Quark & Adobe do everything in a different fashion just because it is different, in order to make switching more difficult. Sure would be nice to see some conventions used across apps. With that said, "Save As..." in QXP 7 is now finally shift+command+s by default. Over the last five years I've typed that combo, had nothing happen, then remembered "oh, yeah, I'm in Quark, then typed option+command+s. Mild irritant, glad it's gone.

[siMac]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

That's because PDFs are not just PDFs anymore than HTML is HTML. Depends on the interpreter and the distiller. It is not standard unless you use *Adobe* only set.

Silly man, of course PDFs are PDFs. Just because the format is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate a vast array of uses doesn't make it unreliable. As with any professional software user competence plays an important part - if you're stupid enough not to embed your fonts or use the eBook settings then you can expect the unexpected on output. And if your PDF reading program isn't up to the job I guess you'll be forced to buy the Adobe version - oh no, wait a minute - it's free!

Add to this the existence of PDF industry standards - the PDF/X subset guarantees reliable output regardless of the file's creator or reader. Increase your knowledge: http://www.pdfxreport.com/faq.html

Compared to sending native Quark XPress files to a service bureau, PDF is a much safer way of ensuring you get what you want on paper.

How do you send files to your printer?

(Getting even further off-topic, HTML is also a standard, albeit one which is designed with flexibility, such as adapting to different screen sizes, in mind.)

[chirpy22]

Originally Posted by chris v

Hey, thanks! That works. I get the impressing that Quark & Adobe do everything in a different fashion just because it is different, in order to make switching more difficult. Sure would be nice to see some conventions used across apps. With that said, "Save As..." in QXP 7 is now finally shift+command+s by default. Over the last five years I've typed that combo, had nothing happen, then remembered "oh, yeah, I'm in Quark, then typed option+command+s. Mild irritant, glad it's gone.

Quark XPress has NEVER used the same keyboard shortcuts that are used for ALL other apps on the Mac OS. Just look at the zoom in, zoom out, and hand tools. How annoying!
They have said that they made the hand tool a different key so that you could use it instead of the space bar while typing in a text box. That's a bunch of crap.
They just like to think they are doing something innovative, when in reality they screw up everyone's work habits.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

Quark XPress has NEVER used the same keyboard shortcuts that are used for ALL other apps on the Mac OS. Just look at the zoom in, zoom out, and hand tools. How annoying!
They have said that they made the hand tool a different key so that you could use it instead of the space bar while typing in a text box. That's a bunch of crap.
They just like to think they are doing something innovative, when in reality they screw up everyone's work habits.

The day Quark is innovative is the day monkeys fly out of my rectum.

[Exizl del Fuego]

Originally Posted by chirpy22

They have said that they made the hand tool a different key so that you could use it instead of the space bar while typing in a text box. That's a bunch of crap.
They just like to think they are doing something innovative, when in reality they screw up everyone's work habits.

I have to disagree here. Quark had a perfectly valid reason for mapping the hand key from the space bar to the...was it option key? In XPress, the hand tool is always one button. In InDesign it switches between space and option depending on the text tool. The XPress way is the better of the two. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consistency of convention with regards to user interfaces, but in this case I feel Quark is in the right.

However with the advent of the Mighty Mouse, this is finally irrelevant.

[art_director]

Originally Posted by Exizl del Fuego

I have to disagree here. Quark had a perfectly valid reason for mapping the hand key from the space bar to the...was it option key? In XPress, the hand tool is always one button. In InDesign it switches between space and option depending on the text tool. The XPress way is the better of the two. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for consistency of convention with regards to user interfaces, but in this case I feel Quark is in the right.

However with the advent of the Mighty Mouse, this is finally irrelevant.

I could not disagree more. Quark did not have to create their own standard. They should have stayed with the rest of the industry. But, in a show of arrogance that only Quark can muster, they had to do it their way rather than the way their users were accustomed to.

[lookmark]

In all fairness (as someone who's used Quark for over 10 years, and currently has to use Quark at my current job, though *finally* I got InDesign installed on my machine and am beginning to use it for some jobs).... as software at least, Quark 3.x was very good for the time. It was Quark as a company that screwed things up -- arrogant behavior, horribly misdirected and mismanaged projects, and (the cardinal sin) letting their flagship application stagnate and fail to evolve.

I'm all for Quark 7 getting better -- and the early Universal Binary is a good sign of progress -- but they've a good long way to go before I'll try like hell to drop it in favor of InDesign.