[godzookie2k]

I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

I think I'm the only one who thinks frozen mollassas sliding down a 88 degree slope moves faster than indesign.

I think I'm the only one who doesn't trust the entire designer trinity in the hands of A-bloatware-dobe.

[iT4c0]

good for you!
Adobe rules

[dadder]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

I think I'm the only one who thinks frozen mollassas sliding down a 88 degree slope moves faster than indesign.

I think I'm the only one who doesn't trust the entire designer trinity in the hands of A-bloatware-dobe.

I'm with ya, however, I am attending a free all day seminar in Minneapolis on Feb. 27th with key speaker David Blatner telling me why I should switch to InDesign.
Check out adobe.com>Events and Seminars> Less Work, More Flow

[MikeM33]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

I think I'm the only one who thinks frozen mollassas sliding down a 88 degree slope moves faster than indesign.

I think I'm the only one who doesn't trust the entire designer trinity in the hands of A-bloatware-dobe.

You're not alone

MikeM

[Burn]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

I don't think so, but until they DO deliver, why not use what is available in this arena - when 6 arrives - it may kick its tail. Sorry - sounds like you have severe problems with ID, I know others who do too, but Quirk a la Classic is garbage. Can you throw me the edited version of what the biggest problem for you is? Is it speed specifically? Huge documents? I have found turning all image previews to their lowest gets ID to pretty near Quirk speeds for anything near 24pgs. (that may be a a laughable size to you). I am not on a beast of a machine either.

I think I'm the only one who thinks frozen mollassas sliding down a 88 degree slope moves faster than indesign.[/B]

Are we talking ID or OSX?

I think I'm the only one who doesn't trust the entire designer trinity in the hands of A-bloatware-dobe. [/B]

Gee, I really don't think so. But that said - a hammer is a hammer. What difference does it make how the boat is built? (what's your beef?)



Hey - when did I become a 'Senior' member? Feelin' old I tell ya.

[kulverse]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

I think I'm the only one who thinks frozen mollassas sliding down a 88 degree slope moves faster than indesign.

I think I'm the only one who doesn't trust the entire designer trinity in the hands of A-bloatware-dobe.

I'd say that maybe Quark would deliver with XPress 6, but since they botched 5 so bad, and haven't improved it, I can't sit here and think 6 will be any better. Unless of course, they decided to just sit on 5, and add all of it's fix's into 6, thusly screwing over all XPress 5 buyers...*ahem*... This time I'll wait a year or so after 6 comes out, and see how things pan out.

InDesign does need an overhaul though.

[MikeM33]

Where I've worked (present job included) Quark is still *king*, plus they've got 99% of thier files in that format. Files which are updated often and stored on a fileserver. It'd be a big, no, MASSIVE, undertaking to change all those into InDesign format (and before you say "but ID will open Quark files" NO, InDesign will not open Quark files and keep everything looking the same. Heck it even drops stuff out altogether).

As an application I actually *do* enjoy using InDesign also, but it's a huge step to take for many businesses. Of course wer'e also still using Quark 4.x and OS 9.x at work. OSX is not an option at this time (not just because of Quark either, because it will function under classic mode if necessary).

Adobe had thier shot and blew it with crap like PageMaker, now they're trying to steal thunder from XPress a little too late I might add. If Adobe had something like InDesign years ago, they'd probably be the dominant layout application of the field, but as I said, they're a little too late in the game now.

The only people that have the liberty to adopt ID are those who don't already have thousands of projects in some other format. Plus, you still have to deal with your service bureau and/or printer.

MikeM

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by MikeM33:
Adobe had thier shot and blew it with crap like PageMaker, now they're trying to steal thunder from XPress a little too late I might add.

I'm trying to understand why Adobe ditched PageMaker and went for InDesign. Are they two completely different products or it's basically a new version but with different name?

[kulverse]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
I'm trying to understand why Adobe ditched PageMaker and went for InDesign. Are they two completely different products or it's basically a new version but with different name?

They are essentially 2 different products. pageMaker doesnt have much power to it. It's the "Print Shop Pro" of the page layout industry. The print options are pretty weak. That said...it's a great program for making basic layouts for work or school. And you can make some pretty fancy stuff with it...I wouldn't trust any seps made from it though.


memory lane...

When I went to school for Graphic Design back in 1991, we were just learning computers, and desktop publishing (The industry was still in the world of marker comps, LetraSet Typo, and mechanicals back then) Our instructor taught us Aldus PageMaker (yes...i said Aldus) more than Quark, saying that PM would ake the industry by storm. Boy...was he wrong. We spent most of our days in PhotoShop 1, Illustrator 88 and PageMaker *(forget what version) on mac IIsi's. I think we only spend like 2 days on Quark. our instructor never forgot to mention his disbelief in Quark. I laugh now.

[art_director]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

Why I *hate* Quark:

1. The app is friggin unstable (using v.5, same experience with v.4)

2. Customer support...well, there isn't any

3. The company is arrogant and lazy

4. I bought v.5 and it was a waste of money. Now I wish I had stuck with my pirated copy of v.4. That's what I get for going legit on all my software.

5. Tired of having imported art, like logos, look like they were illustrated with Legos.

6. The app is friggin unstable.

7. My v.5 installer CDs (yes, plural CDs -- Quark has sent me four to date) do not work in my Ti PowerBook. Mind you, every other app I own, and there are plenty, all work.

8. The app is friggin unstable.

9. No support for multiple undos.

10. The app is friggin unstable.

11. Obnoxious artifacts in v.5 (and v.4 as I recall) while in Classic mode.

12. The app is friggin unstable.

13. Quark, the company, hasn't listened to us, their core consumer base, while upgrading (using the term loosely) the app.

14. The app is friggin unstable.

-------

Sorry Godzookie, we agree on most things, Quark is not one of them.

[godzookie2k]

Quark isn't the only application that leaves artifacts in classic. there is an xtention out (don't remember the name) that fixes the problem.

Quark 4.x and 3.3x are more stable for me than most other applications, up to and including photoshop/illustrator/flash/freehand/indesign.

I can throw a 100 page document at quark, full bleed images, lots of em, etc etc etc and have it open and ready for editing, including time to activate fonts in 1/10th the speed of illustrator opening a poster sized document. (or, id opening a 20 page document)

ID is slow. ID under OSX is slower (partly to blame on osx, part of it is the damn app is sluggish)

ID is crash happy for me.

ID's stylesheet implementation drives me bonkers.

ID's touted QuarkXpress file importing doesn't ****ing work.

Transparency features are nice, but I don't find many features in ID, illustrator path editing and photoshop layer support aside, "killer". path editing and photoshop support ARE great don't get me wrong, but they aren't great enough to get me to cut down my productivity time by half while waiting for ID to let me scroll to the next page.

ID is slow, did I mention that?

Quark 5 IS a pile of ****. I agree. I also didn't invest in it because of the horrible reviews I heard. Just like, when I heard about photoshop 5.5 being a useless upgrade, I didn't purchase it. Its my policy with all software.

Quark as a company are a bunch of useless trash, they have no customer support, and they allegedly talk trash about my platform of choice. However, I have never had a problem with Xpress that I've found myself without a solution and needing to call customer support. I guess I'm just lucky.

MAYBE my quark stability and ID slowness are just due to quirky good installs/bad installs. But whatever the cause it gives me a good experience with the software and it gives me enough to believe in QuarkXpress 6's future ass kicking.

At work, as much as I would like to make the jump to X (I have at home) its an expensive venture for my company and what we have, OS 9/Xpress 4.x works, so why waste money dealing with upgrade headaches?

[DeathMan]

Originally posted by art_director:
Why I *hate* Quark:

chop

-------

Sorry Godzookie, we agree on most things, Quark is not one of them.

What about undos? Is it true that there is only one undo? (not a quark user obviously)

[godzookie2k]

Real designers don't make mistakes.
































(ok ok ok, multiple undos would be nice, hell undos that worked most of the time would be nice. STILL not worth the price of admission I say.)

[art_director]

Originally posted by DeathMan:
What about undos? Is it true that there is only one undo? (not a quark user obviously)

Yep, just one undo.

[art_director]

Hey Zookie: If you remember the name of the extension that solves the archiving issue would you mind passing it along? Thx. I would say that it's flippin' ridiculous that I spend $900 on an application and then need to pay for an extension to get rid of artifacts. More support my my hate of Q.v.5.

Did not have the same experience with Q.v.3 and Q.v.4 being more stable than photoshop/illustrator/flash/freehand/indesign.

The 100 page Q document speed vs. an Illustrator file is not an apples to apples comparison. The ID comparison is. Which version of ID are you using?

What are you doing when ID is crash happy? Any times that it's more prone to crashes?

Can't speak to the style sheets -- don't use 'em.

ID's file importing from Q is of concern.

Yes, it was foolish of me to buy Q.v.5 but I was at a crossroads. I was going legit on all my software and was faced with a choice to buy Q.v.4 or Q.v.5 at nearly the same price. In hindsight I should have stuck with the pirated app for a while longer. But now I have no worry because I own everything.

I hope you're right about Q.v.6 but I'm not holding my breath after the piece of **** that is Q.v.5. Feeling screwed, basically. And I'm still without an installer CD that works in my Ti PowerBook. Q is a bastard company.

The need to stay back in OS 9 is understood and appreciated by the community but isn't it flippin' pathetic that one app is holding back the entire advertising / design / print community? IMO that's ridiculous.

[art_director]

http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?...30217105357509

[godzookie2k]

I'm beginning to feel like Fox Mulder.

"I want to believe"

This makes me more confident.
http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/60_series1.html

[godzookie2k]

i'll dig up that xtension for you AD, its gonna take some searching though as quarks site is fubared today.

[chris v]

I find myself totally fence-sitting. I'm the other guy who bought Quark 5, don't ask me what I was thinking, maybe that the beta-tester discount made it worth it.

I had to produce a job from scratch in Quark (5, in Classic mode) today for the first time in a while, and it literally drove me nuts. (do ALL the key commands and shortcuts have to be non-standard?!?)

If Quark 6 gets great reviews, and if I can get my hands on a demo, I might upgrade to it right away.

I played with the recent InDesign demo though, and while it's not perfect, it was more comfortable to me since I do the majority of my work in Photoshop/Illustrator. I did a 20 page Quark 4 file import (many fonts, many pictures, runaround, text linked across multiple pages, sidebars, you name it) and it came across beautifully. BUT, I haven't bought it yet. I don't much care for the printing options compared to Quark.

Quark 6 or InDesign 2.0 will be my next big software purchase, and I'm waiting for Quark to show me the goods. I can live with 5 for a while longer, but if 6 doesn't kick some serious ass, Im moving on.

Email me if you need that screen redraw XT.

CV

[MikeM33]

I've gotta ask my fellow collegues just exactly what is meant by Quark 4 & 5 leaving "artifacts" behind???

I've never made the move to version 5, but I've used 4.11 for years now. It's quite possible it's a "problem" that I'm just so used to now that it's not even really a "problem" for me.

Could anyone give an example of what this is all about?

As many have mentionned above Quark 3/4/5 all only have one single undoe option. Fortunately with version 6 we'll finally have multiple undoes for those who aren't careful enough with thier work I'm so used to not messing-up I'll probably just continue working in the same fashion as I've been for years using version 4.x.

My bigger fear is how will version 6 handle XTensions? Everyplace I've worked to date has some special/fancy/cool Xtensions they require to get thier everyday business done. The place I work at now actually produces thier own in-house XTension for QXP. They'll likely have to re-program/code (whatever they do) this thing from the ground-up.

MikeM

[Mac Guru]

I had an opportunity to use the 6.0 Quark beta this morning and all I have to say is, yuck.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Quark 5.0 in Aqua. The app took about 3 min to load up (splash screen + Wait blob). There are some new "real time" things that allow you to see things as they're resized etc. and they TOTALLY suck (i.e. screen refresh is horrid).

The only things I like about 6.0 are AutoSave and the preview in browser feature. Other than that, nothing new (yet).

yawn

Mac Guru

[Helvetica Neue]

Yep. Quark 6 is an aqua Quark 5, with a few add-ons: multiple undo, but only for certain procedures; ps level 3 printing (with new bugs no doubt); improved XML (who cares;-); better web design integration (yeah!); better screen previews (but only for bitmap images, not vector art, and you have to register to get the xtension from Quark).

Wow, and that took, how long....?

[godzookie2k]

well what did you all expect? Touch screen functional holographic interface with dock magnification like toolbar? All I expect is a bug-fixed aquafied Quark 5 with multiple undos, hi res previews (not something I'd use regularly, but it'd be nice), layer support (in 5 iirc), etc?

[::maroma::]

Wow. From the sound of it, Quark 6 isn't too far along. Either that, or it's going to completely suck. So multiple undoes are STILL not universal (not applied to every function)?? I mean seriously, this is just unacceptable. I don't want to have undo work for one thing, and not another. I want undo to work for everything! (oh wait, it does...in InDesign).

And can someone please tell me why Quark insists on spending time and money including REALLY CRAPPY web support in Xpress? Someone please explain this to me.

By the sound of the people who have gotten a copy of beta Xpress 6, I'm not holding out any hope for the final version. So it's taken Quark this long to come out with this beta??

I just can't see why anyone would expect Xpress 6 to be that much better than 4 or 5. I also can't see why anyone who has given their hard earned money to Quark, would just sit and take it as Quark treats you like complete crap, ignores your requests, and dictates to you when you will get the features you desperately need.

I bought Quark Xpress 4 a while back. I spent a lot of money on it. Quark treats me like poop. They do not care about their users. Especially Mac users. All they care about is doing as little as possible in order to stay alive. They have a stranglehold on the publishing industry, and they are using that to the fullest advantage. Now, based on those facts alone, I will never buy Quark Xpress again. I will trade in my Quark 4 for a discount on InDesign. Yes, Adobe is a huge company, but they actually listen to their users and act like a real software company. (oh, and they don't publicly bash their Mac user base)

[art_director]

i'm in the middle of my first quark v.5 and id v.2 file exchange with a client. the fact is, well, it $uck$. it's been a major headache and i'm not impressed. don't know if quark or adobe is at fault but this is screwing my happiness in a big way. btw - i'm on the quark side of the exchange.

mikem33 - the artifacts are bits n' pieces of screen that don't get redrawn when you switch between apps / files. it's irritating as sin. to clear the screen you need to hit your window shade and that does the trick but it's annoying to have to deal with.

i'm having this HORRIBLE screen redraw issue in jaguar. if i zoom in and go back to full page view half the damn screen stays white. a window shade pop up & down and she's good as new but i'm getting bugged.

thanks for the q v.6 reports. i wish they were more positive. of course, it is a beta under limited release so it must need *a lot* of work. let's see, it took quark two years to get to this point (assuming they started when OSX was released) so i figure it will take them another decade to get a full working version to market.

quark blows. have i said that before?

[Dougmc]

I'm curious as to what some of the Quark devotees are feeling about Quark now that it's been out and in use for a while.

Personally, I'm giving up with them. Having gone through the repeated, antiquated (faxing a form for re-install codes?), and slow process of obtaining a new install code has been enough for me to complete my transition to Adobe's InDesign.

Quark doesn't seem to care that they're loosing customers.

I can't help but wonder: have they lost more money from those that pirate their software, or more from loosing customers that abandon their product because of the 49-character activation codes that must be put in, and then renewed again if you must reinstall?

D

[cowerd]

Geez I don't care about InDesign or Quark, but I do resent Adobe for turning Illustrator into a steaming pile of ****. Apart from the new text engine, the CS upgrade didn't really speed things up (fake screen updates suck) and is now less UI compliant than before.

Thanks Adobe. And don't even get me started on FrameMaker. I have countless GB of LaTeX howtos on my desktop as a result of this.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Dougmc:
I'm curious as to what some of the Quark devotees are feeling about Quark now that it's been out and in use for a while.

I'm still using Quark 4.1 in classic mode. I bought version 5 when it came out, but didn't like it after a few weeks so I went back to 4. I'm sticking with 4 because it just works. I thought about upgrading to version 6, but why "fix something if it isn't broken?"

I've tried InDesign and it is a nice product, but Quark is still the industry standard. The print shops, service bureaus, and magazines that I deal with only will accept Quark 4.1 files, and until that changes I will continue to use Quark.

[grayware]

I run ID 2 and Q 6. I prefer Quark. So do my vendors.

[Yose]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
I'm trying to understand why Adobe ditched PageMaker and went for InDesign. Are they two completely different products or it's basically a new version but with different name?

InDesign... or the concept of InDesign has been in development since before Adobe bought Aldus up, from what I gleaned from a couple Adobe engineers at a conference last year it was sort of a "secret" project while Pagemaker was being worked on.

I'm probably wrong.

Meh. FUD!!!

[Yager]

Been working in Quark since 1991. It is the most unstable, UNCHANGED, poorly thought out application I have EVER used. It constantly manages to piss me off. IT LOOKS 95% THE SAME AS IT DID IN 1991! It does almost the same things as it did in 1991, with almost no real improvements.

For instance "Can't position item off the pasteboard." Well why the hell not? Just let me move the damn thing for crying out loud!!! I hate that crap!

That being said, I haven't even tried In Design yet....

[siliconwarrior]

Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y. Please enter a value between X and Y.

The application QuarkXPress 6 has unexpectedly quit.

Arrrggghhh!

And as for 'if it ain't broke don't fix it it':
A. If that was the attitude we'd all still be living in caves.
B. It is freakin' broke goddammit.

[art_director]

we should all spam quark's site with negative posts about their app and cust service.

[HandsomeDevil]

Quark is horrible.

I'm tired of all of these hybrid programs...and Quark has fallen victim.

I can't think of ANYONE that uses Quark for anything other than page lay out. If I want to do web design...I'll get Macromedia products.

InDesign has made leaps and bounds since version 1. I'm still not used to it...but am trying to get more people to convert. Part of the problem is Quark has been an industry standard for years. And InDesign at its introduction was mediocre at best. It was considered to be the incestual result of PageMaker and Illustrator mating.

InDesign now handles Multi-Inks as Quark has always done. It handles justified type better. It's Ink Manager is PHENOMENAL for any that does any type of prepress production work. However, it does have it's issues. But then again, if the person putting the files together is a complete obstinant tool, the files will be horrendous regardless of program used.

If Quark doesn't get it's act together soon...InDesign can take away....I was going to say years of hard work..but Quark hasn't been working very hard on updating it's software.

[Talk2Angus]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I think I'm the only one who believes that Quark will deliver a good product.

I think I'm the only one who thinks frozen mollassas sliding down a 88 degree slope moves faster than indesign.

I think I'm the only one who doesn't trust the entire designer trinity in the hands of A-bloatware-dobe.

InDesign CS.InDesign CS.InDesign CS.InDesign CS.
InDesign CS.InDesign CS.InDesign CS.InDesign CS.

[tpicco]

From 1995 to 2003 I used Quark exclusively to put out magazines and books, design brochures, etc etc... I never upgraded past the top 4 version. (WHY did they think I would ever use them for web pages???)

Recently I got the Adobe Premimum Creative Suite. And I put out a recent magazine with InDesign CS.

SCORE: Quark loses, but only by a few points...

[art_director]

Originally posted by tpicco:
From 1995 to 2003 I used Quark exclusively to put out magazines and books, design brochures, etc etc... I never upgraded past the top 4 version. (WHY did they think I would ever use them for web pages???)

Recently I got the Adobe Premimum Creative Suite. And I put out a recent magazine with InDesign CS.

SCORE: Quark loses, but only by a few points...

try the new quark and you'll change the score.

[tpicco]

Actually, as I was working one job with InDesign, I was doing another job with Quark 6... and it is mightily improved. If it was InDesign CS vs Quark 5, Quark would lose big time...

One of the printers I work with regularly prefers InDesign for the production end... says even Quark 6 is slightly problematic in pre-press PDF'ing...

Right now, my biggest complaint about InDesign is the keyboard shortcuts to the paragraph styles require two hands...

So for me, Quark is neck and neck but a wee bit behind

[godzookie2k]

Originally posted by Dougmc:
I can't help but wonder: have they lost more money from those that pirate their software, or more from loosing customers that abandon their product because of the 49-character activation codes that must be put in, and then renewed again if you must reinstall?

D

those are probably the weakest arguments for a program jump I've heard in a while. a) you're kidding yourself if you think that both adobe and quark really care about anything beyond site licenses. b) if youre reinstalling quark that much then there is probably something else wrong. end of the day who cares, thats why you have an IT staff.

[godzookie2k]

The application QuarkXPress 6 has unexpectedly quit.

I see that more from adobe apps than anyone else except for maybe mozilla.

[godzookie2k]

*blames wine on this requiring 3 posts*


I'm liking the new quark. I still haven't used it much, I've been in coder land lately, but when I have used it its been pleasurable. I'd say know them both and know them well. For as much as I bitch about ID I'd be crazy to not know them both. actually my entire id package is laid out in id.







i still hate it though.

[art_director]

anyone else experiencing quark.v.6 renaming files arbitrarily? this happens to me frequently. i would call quark and ask but it seems their customer service has only gotten worse since they moved the call center to bangalore, india.

[tpicco]

One benefit of InDesign over Quark 6... if you have to use the info from ExCel files, Quark is asleep at the wheel...