[shinji]

Has anyone with a developer seed of Leopard tested any of the CS3 apps?

I found this on TUAW Analysis: Adobe CS3 may not work with Leopard - The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

This guy's comment in particular:

3. I have access to a Leopard seed and have the full compliment of CS3 apps (well the Designer pack + Fireworks) and can confirm that they do indeed run like grade A crap. Numerous problems as reported to Apple have been:

• Random crashes in all CS3 apps
• Input box problems and sliders do not work properly in all CS3 apps
• You canot run Photoshop for longer than 20 minutes before it either crashes on you or causes your Mac to stall and even the simplest tasks like nudging a layer cause the spinning beach ball of death.
• Flash has serious display issues when looking at more than one document.
• Various save problems in Illustrator and problems when opening more than one document (two windows open, can;t close the first one).

These are just the ones off the top of my head but the list I sent through to Apple was extensive. This is on top of a lot of bugs in both Mail.app and Safari.

Can anyone confirm that? Does that make sense?

thanks

[art_director]

Premature "news."

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Premature "news."

Not really, 10.5 is out in one week. This news is way overdue. Adobe still hasn't fixed these issues. Adobe just doesn't care about it's customers and regularily shafts us with second rate programming like this.

They're so lazy and their software so bloated that they haven't fixed this yet even though they've known about it since 10.5 went into private beta.

Adobe is a sad company and certainly couldn't care less about its Mac customer base.

At least there is Quark so we don't have to suffer with Indesign.

V

[art_director]

Only fools would switch their work machines to Leopard upon release. Let people who use their computers for fun / personal goo be the guinea pigs.

That, my friend, is the wisdom of experience speaking.

[CheesePuff]

Exactly. Did every Windows user run out and upgrade to Vista? More importantly, did every business do it? No. I know many business's still using Windows 2000 since there was no need or major advantage to upgrade to XP.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Only fools would switch their work machines to Leopard upon release. Let people who use their computers for fun / personal goo be the guinea pigs.

That, my friend, is the wisdom of experience speaking.

Naturally - I agree 100%. However some professionals may consider upgrading already in 10.5.1 if it stable enough, but there is no indication of when Adobe will have updated CS3 to handle Leopard.

It is atrocious that CS3 was in fact developed alongside betas of Leopard and still Adobe couldn't be bothered to make an effort like every other Mac developer and get it to work with 10.5 or be ready with an upgrade before the release of 10.5.

So it won't bother professionals, for now. Adobe can't really be counted on in these matters. It took them years to make their apps Universal Binaries. Quark made XPress UB as soon as there were Intel Macs. So did most developers.

Except Adobe and Microsoft.

V

[art_director]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Quark made XPress UB as soon as there were Intel Macs.

Those of us who used Quark back in the early days know how horrible that company has been to their users. While they did get a UB out quickly their flagshipp app -- Q -- sucks azz. They haven't listened to user input for years. He11, it took them six free king versions to have multiple undos.

Again, the wise pro user won't upgrade to Leopard until they know, for a fact, that all drivers for perphs are working as well as software. There will be glitches, guaranteed.

[Oisín]

If this is true, it presents an odd conundrum, doesn’t it?

CS3 was developed mostly simultaneously with development of Leopard, no? And it’s not too far out to hypothesise that someone in Adobe’s developer team had a developer version of Leopard, is it? Or that Adobe would have official developer versions of Leopards easily available, even?

Then why would Adobe want to develop a suite that they already know when they’re developing it will not run well on the next version of the OS they’re developing it for in only a few months’ time? That just means they’ll have to go back and change a lot of their brand spankin’ new code to get it to work properly again. Why not do this from the start? Have Leopard betas really changed so much that it hasn’t been possible to rely enough on them for even such simple testing issues?

Or are Adobe just going to call the ‘Leopard-compatible’ version CS4 and charge an arm and a leg for the upgrade when it comes out? That would be smart, but underhanded.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

At least there is Quark so we don't have to suffer with Indesign.

I hope you were being sarcastic there.

Quark hasn't lost so much market share since InDesign Came out. Quark is also 10x worse to deal with.

I celebrated the day my company free'd me from the hell that was known as Quark, and let me get InDesign.

I only used Quark because Pagemaker was useless. Multi-Ad creator was better than the two, but not supported very well. InDesign 2 came out and well the rest is history.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by art_director 

Only fools would switch their work machines to Leopard upon release. Let people who use their computers for fun / personal goo be the guinea pigs.

That, my friend, is the wisdom of experience speaking.

Exactly. I won't even think of it for at least 6 to 8 months or somewhere in the range of version 10.5.5.

I'm pretty happy with Tiger.

Interested in Leopard only if speed increases are guaranteed for better handling the 64-bit environment (which promise I read on another thread)

[goMac]

I don't think that post on TUAW is entirely accurate.

[shinji]

You're a developer, right goMac? Have you tried any CS3 apps?

[- - e r i k - -]

CS3 works fine in Leopard. Has problems with spaces though. But then again, so does FCP.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

CS3 works fine in Leopard. Has problems with spaces though. But then again, so does FCP.

Are you serious? After all these posts about how it doesn't work you just pipe in and say it's fine? Which is it? I finally shelled out $650 for photoshop last week and would like to know. No, I don't use my Mac as professional, but I love having the new versions of the OS. I feel like a nerd's nerd when everyone has upgraded and I'm still using the old 'cat'. It's bad enough seeing everyone using the betas without me. Does photoshop work or not? What what do you mean by 'spaces'.

[workerbee]

mrtew, I'm in the same boat: I like to use the latest and (hopefully) greatest, both for the OS as for my software, i.e. CS3 among many others. I really hope CS3 web plus deluxe or whatever other silly marketing name my Adobe package had will work with Leopard without problems.
My guess is that -erik- meant Spaces with his somewhat cryptic remark.

[almaink]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Not really, 10.5 is out in one week. This news is way overdue. Adobe still hasn't fixed these issues. Adobe just doesn't care about it's customers and regularily shafts us with second rate programming like this.

They're so lazy and their software so bloated that they haven't fixed this yet even though they've known about it since 10.5 went into private beta.

Adobe is a sad company and certainly couldn't care less about its Mac customer base.

At least there is Quark so we don't have to suffer with Indesign.


V

So what have you been smoking? Quack has got to be the biggest POS layout application there is. They blew it when the application was re-written for OSX. 5 years after Adobe ads transparency Quack ads it, the big difference is you can't export it from Quack unless you flatten it, thereby making it a million piece mess. No way to turn off Quacks color management, nasty font display if you can get the font to load at all, I could go on and on but all you gotta do is go to Quacks forum site to see for yourself that many are still having issues with it. BTW how did you conclude that Quack will even work in leopard?

System requirements
Mac OS
Software
Mac OS® X 10.4 (Tiger™) Nothing on their site to suggest it will work. At least Adobe has posted that they will release a patch.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by almaink 

Quack

I can see that between the two of us you're not yet *old* enough to smoke

V

[Kevin]

While calling it "Quack" did him no service, his other arguments were sound.

I only used Quark the time I did because at the time, the rest sucked even worse.

InDesign CS3 still has it's faults. But it's nothing compared to the crapfeast Quark is.

The people I know that are still using Quark for the most part, are also STILL using OS 9. And it's Quark 4.1 they are using.

I really wanted to like the OS X version. But it was even more craptasticular than the OS 9 one. They were so used to being #1 that they sat on their hands and barely did diddly to the application. Much like MS did with Windows.

InDesign comes out and puts Quark years behind in advancements and predicability.

Quark will always have it's niche users though.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Quark will always have it's niche users though.

Intel machines will always have their niche users though. Quark is the industry standard, like it or not.

Quark 7 is a very fast, stable and completely native OS X app. It works flawlessly with Leopard and has every feature found in IDCS3.

Quark announced a UB as soon as Steve announced that Apple was moving to Intel. Adobe sat on its laurels while the world turned and told people that the then recently released CS2 would not be made UB. People would have to wait two years and then pay for CS3 for that 'feature'.

The only other company that treats its Mac users in similar fashion is Microsoft. Quark is quite good, listens to its customers and has very solid product support.

XPress is fast and functional, unbloated and stable. It makes money for people, not trouble like ID.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Intel machines will always have their niche users though. Quark is the industry standard, like it or not.

Quark WAS industry standard. They OWNED the market. Now I am not saying there are more InDesign users than Quark users, I don't have such numbers (and I doubt you do either) But Quark no longer has that industry standard hold on it that it once had. InDesign has taken a HUGE chunk out of their markethold. And for good reason. Quark was sitting on it's laurels while Adobe coded it's Quark Killer in the background.

Quark 7 is a very fast, stable and completely native OS X app. It works flawlessly with Leopard and has every feature found in IDCS3.

Well it sorta does.. on paper. It just caught up. (still doesn't work as seamlessly with Photoshop and Illustrator as Indesign does, nor does it have the support) See when people were switching to OS X, the version of Quark that was out just SUCKED. InDesign however was beautiful, and had features Quark didn't have at the time. This caused a lot of people that wanted to switch to OS X to switch to InDesign. Like I said, most of the people I know that are STILL using Quark for professional design work are still using OS 9 and Quark 4.

Quark announced a UB as soon as Steve announced that Apple was moving to Intel. Adobe sat on its laurels while the world turned and told people that the then recently released CS2 would not be made UB.

Because CS2 was almost done by the time Steve made said announcement. CS3 came right around the corner, and is indeed native. Those using Adobe products did not have to wait long at all. Most graphics firms are still being run on G4/G5s right now. Most will be moving to Intel soon. Design houses usually don't run the latest and greatest. They also tend to keep their hardware as long as possible. (more bang for the buck)

The only other company that treats its Mac users in similar fashion is Microsoft. Quark is quite good, listens to its customers and has very solid product support.

You got to be kidding me. Quark is known to be THE WORST at treating it's customers. They are rude, snobbish, and their initial claim is always the fault of something YOU are doing wrong. And not their software. Regardless of who's fault it is. Not having to deal with Quark on the phone was worth switching over. Though I can't say I've ever HAD to deal with Adobe support like I did with Quark.

XPress is fast and functional, unbloated and stable. It makes money for people, not trouble like ID.

ID is those things, and more. It works better with photoshop and illustrator. Better than Quark does. And I am surely hoping you aren't saying that people will make more money by using Quark.

BTW as far as Quark being the standard.

From Quark's own wiki site.

"In the late 1990s, Quark was criticized for having slow innovation cycles, high prices, and a poor response to customer needs, therefore many customers welcomed he release of InDesign as a less expensive and viable alternative. The availability of InDesign, which was initially released in 1999, resulted in QuarkXPress losing market share. InDesign also demonstrated the first significant competition for that market, which forced Quark to lower prices and invest more into service and marketing. As of 2007, neither QuarkXPress and InDesign can claim a dominant position.

Neither of them are in a dominant position. But InDesign did take Quark's grasp on the market. And those reasons were listed above.

Like I said, the days of Quark owning the market is over. And it's their own fault.

When companies upgraded to OS X they could could buy Photoshop, Illustrator, AND Indesign for $899.

Or Buy Quark $600 Photoshop $500, and Illustrator $500 = $1600. Almost TWICE the price.

Companies saw that. It spoke to them. The fact that users wanted for the most part switch to InDesign didn't hurt matters.

I know that is how I got out of the Quark rut. Simply showing them how much money they'd save.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

When companies upgraded to OS X they could could buy Photoshop, Illustrator, AND Indesign for $899.

Or Buy Quark $600 Photoshop $500, and Illustrator $500 = $1600. Almost TWICE the price.

I know buying Quark is more expensive. For that price you get better service and a damn solid product. Adobe has to sell their Pagemaker derivative cheap just to give Quark any competition.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I know buying Quark is more expensive.

The the extra cost, you don't get diddly more. You actually get a program that works WORSE with Photoshop and Illustrator.

For that price you get better service and a damn solid product.

I've never needed Adobe service to say either way. But Quark's I have needed. And ever time I was treated like dirt. And as far as solid goes, meh..

Adobe has to sell their Pagemaker derivative cheap just to give Quark any competition.

It's hardly a Pagemaker derivative. I HATED Pagemaker. I'd rather use Quark 4 again than Pagemaker. InDesign is nothing like Pagemaker.

Adobe just made smarter moves when OS X came out than Quark did. And Quark lost their position as being the top page layout app. While it put some dent into Quark's strangle on the market, it wasn't till CS2 came out did InDesign really do any damage. Over the years more and more people have been switching to ID to the point where Quark and ID are pretty much toe to toe.

I expect Quark to keep losing more and more ground. Since Adobe owns both Photoshop and Illustrator, the top other two graphic making programs, I would say it has a better chance of making them work better with ID than Quark does.

I am not even going into how CS3's GUI topples over Quark's outdated mess.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

It's hardly a Pagemaker derivative.

Oh but it is a Pagemake derivative. Nothing but. And it shows. I can't stand it.

Since Adobe owns both Photoshop and Illustrator, the top other two graphic making programs, I would say it has a better chance of making them work better with ID than Quark does.

Yeah I fully expect Adobe to use some Microsoftian underhanded anti-competetive ways to lay blows on Quark.

Obviously Indesign can't win on merits alone, so it will have to be beaten into the general public (designers) by bundling it with must-haves like Photoshop.

Sad. Sadder even if they somehow make Indesign and Photoshop play better together than Quark and Photoshop.

Even so, the workflow is smooth as it can be between Quark and Photoshop as it is. At least the way I use it.

I do despise Adobe, but I buy their products as long as they are the better. I don't like Quark much better than Adobe, but I choose them because they make the better product.

I hold no alliegances. As soon as Indesign is the better, I'll change. That will be a looooong time from now the way Adobe is developing Indesign.

V

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Are you serious? After all these posts about how it doesn't work you just pipe in and say it's fine? Which is it? I finally shelled out $650 for photoshop last week and would like to know. No, I don't use my Mac as professional, but I love having the new versions of the OS. I feel like a nerd's nerd when everyone has upgraded and I'm still using the old 'cat'. It's bad enough seeing everyone using the betas without me. Does photoshop work or not? What what do you mean by 'spaces'.

Yes. The entire CS3 suite works fine with Leopard.

When Spaces is enabled though, Photoshop seems to have trouble finding out on which "space" to display it's new documents, sometimes failing to put it on any screen. You can see it when switching spaces, but not on any space you can get to. Save for this odd bug, it works absolutely fine.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Oh but it is a Pagemake derivative. Nothing but. And it shows. I can't stand it.

I would say it was psychosomatic on your part. Cause I absolutely HATED Pagemaker. And tried InDesign HATING Pagemaker believing I'd hate this too. All the things in Pagemaker I hated are gone in InDesign. Adobe really did their homework with this one.

Yeah I fully expect Adobe to use some Microsoftian underhanded anti-competetive ways to lay blows on Quark.

But that isn't what happened. InDesign gone on top by it's own merits, and Quark's lack of. As I already pointed out.

Obviously Indesign can't win on merits alone, so it will have to be beaten into the general public (designers) by bundling it with must-haves like Photoshop.

Even though I proved otherwise. What you are doing now is called spreding FUD. You don't have an real complaint, so you make up things.

Sadder even if they somehow make Indesign and Photoshop play better together than Quark and Photoshop.

Somehow? If they make? It already is. One of the main reasons I get as to why people switched over. That and it was Cheaper. Quark has been overpricing Express for years.

Even so, the workflow is smooth as it can be between Quark and Photoshop as it is. At least the way I use it.

Smooth, I'll give you that. But not as smooth as InDesign and Photoshop.

I do despise Adobe, but I buy their products as long as they are the better. I don't like Quark much better than Adobe, but I choose them because they make the better product.

I don't despise either company. Even though I dislike Quarks snobbish attitude with their help center. (I love Adobe apps, and picked it over Pagemaker) So no Adobe allegiance here. i just bought what WORKED better.

I hold no alliegances. As soon as Indesign is the better, I'll change. That will be a looooong time from now the way Adobe is developing Indesign.

No you wont. It's already better. The facts that in a short period of time, InDesign took half of Quark's market should say enough.

And they didn't do it by practicing MS like tactics. Stop spreading FUD.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I would say it was psychosomatic on your part.

I think you are schizophrenic in your arm.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Cause I absolutely HATED Pagemaker. And tried InDesign HATING Pagemaker believing I'd hate this too. All the things in Pagemaker I hated are gone in InDesign. Adobe really did their homework with this one.

It is a Pagemaker derivative. Indesign is the fruit of Adobe's aqcuisition of Pagemaker. It's not like Adobe could make their own app from scratch hehe

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But that isn't what happened. InDesign gone on top by it's own merits, and Quark's lack of. As I already pointed out.

Merits? What merits?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Even though I proved otherwise. What you are doing now is called spreding FUD. You don't have an real complaint, so you make up things.

Kevin, I only tell the truth. Nothing but the truth. For the truth shall set you free.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

The facts that in a short period of time, InDesign took half of Quark's market should say enough.

short period of time?? no not really, it's been 8 years. Adobe has forced Indesign on people with Photoshop. It has sold it for cheap. It has done EVERYTHING.

Yet, it couldn't kill Quark. Even when Quark was pretty crappy. Now, Quark 7.3 is anything but. Fast, smooth, reliable and has more features than InDesign CS3.

Adobe was so sure it would *kill* Quark. I guess Adobe *didn't* do their homework after all.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And they didn't do it by practicing MS like tactics. Stop spreading FUD.

Oh yeah they did it with Microsoft like tactics. Use other popular products as leverage to get you to use an inferior product, use proprietary formats and compatibility to exclude other vendors and under-pricing the competition financed with marketleading products.

Indesign was forced upon us with money made from Photoshop, like the XBox was forced upon us with money made from Windows. Like Microsoft, Adobe has come to realize that even by buying the market one can't get dominance with an inferior product.

The FUD is all your Kevin.

V

[JonoMarshall]

I can't believe people are arguing in favour of Quark... use it if you want to, but understand that the next wave of designers will be using ID.

[JonoMarshall]

(Sad as that may be.)

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

I can't believe people are arguing in favour of Quark... use it if you want to, but understand that the next wave of designers will be using ID.

I can't believe there are still Adobe zombies around. The brainwashing ended a few years ago when it became sadly obvious that Adobe was just.. mediocre, fat, lazy, bloated and didn't care squat about it's customers.

If it had been a smaller company, it would resemble a large Quark in the 90s, ironically. However it is more similar to a small Microsoft. Pick a decade. MS has always sucked rocks.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It is a Pagemaker derivative. Indesign is the fruit of Adobe's aqcuisition of Pagemaker. It's not like Adobe could make their own app from scratch hehe

What I am saying is, the things that annoyed me about Pagemaker, are gone. So whatever they did to it, they did to it right. So it's irrelevent were it came from, if it indeed come from Pagemaker. That's irrelevant.

Merits? What merits?

Pay attention to my posts.

Kevin, I only tell the truth. Nothing but the truth. For the truth shall set you free.

Like when you said this?

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Hoho, yes,l don't get me started on Italy. Now there is a land of **********s. The Roman Empire could never have been had the Romans been Italians. ****ing pissant, dishonorable cocksucking, mother****ing, retard raping, self absorbed pieces of ****. And that's the nicest things I can say about Italians.


Nah, real experience. I have met so many Germans, Italians and Swedes through my travels and as tourists in my country. I have lived among them and I have known them. This isn't prejudice, this is just the way they are. ********s.

French Canadians too. Don't know about the rest of them Canadians, I haven't had the pleasure.

Norwegians, Portuguese, Spaniards, French, Polish, Dutch, Belgians, Irish, Greeks the Baltics and Brits (excepting the drunk coke-using white trash) are all good people.

The Danish and the Swiss are not exactly bad people, just dumb. And very confused.

Peh, take a wild guess mr. self-rightous, politically correct, yet self-serving German...

short period of time?? no not really, it's been 8 years. Adobe has forced Indesign on people with Photoshop. It has sold it for cheap. It has done EVERYTHING.

1. It took Quark's monopoly away from them back in CS2.
2. Adobe hasn't forced anything on Anyone. They had the same bundle idea when Pagemaker was out. Pagemaker stunk. So it didn't work.

Yet, it couldn't kill Quark. Even when Quark was pretty crappy. Now, Quark 7.3 is anything but. Fast, smooth, reliable and has more features than InDesign CS3.

Nonsense. Indesign CS2 was labeled THE Quark Killer. You are in denial.

Adobe was so sure it would *kill* Quark. I guess Adobe *didn't* do their homework after all.

They took half their market-share away. InDesign has killed Quark's monopoly. If Apple did that to MS, it would be made a big deal of.

Oh yeah they did it with Microsoft like tactics. Use other popular products as leverage to get you to use an inferior product, use proprietary formats and compatibility to exclude other vendors and under-pricing the competition financed with marketleading products.

Again, they did the same thing in Pagemaker was out. No one bought it cause Pagemaker sucked. So your assertion is incorrect.

Indesign was forced upon us with money made from Photoshop

Wrong. Pagemaker was forced in a similar way.It never got adopted cause it was crap.

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

I can't believe people are arguing in favour of Quark... use it if you want to, but understand that the next wave of designers will be using ID.

Someone who knows what they are talking about.

I can't believe there are still Quark Zombies around.

Best bet is to know BOTH. And I do. I actually know Quark better than ID right at the moment.

But that is changing My work day is just so much more productive and less of a hassle now that I don't have to use Quark.

Multi-Ad Creator isn't a bad layout application either. The newspaper downstairs uses it. I did as well when I used it.

I'd label them like this.

InDesign
Multi-Ad
Quark
the rest.

As far as usability, stability, and a Mac like experience. BTW Apple is saying that CS3 works FINE on the GM of 10.5

[JonoMarshall]

I can't believe there are still Adobe zombies around.

Umm, no zombies here, everyone i know who is < 30 and in the trade uses ID, all colleges (in the Uk at least) stopped pushing Quark (and 7 has failed to make an impact to change this trend).

I hope that Quark make some sort of come back (I am fluent in both packages, but use ID as I have been pushed in this direction) as competition is a good thing but I don't see it happening any time soon. (Adobe's suite and price point are an attractive offer, no?)

The last time I used Quark was because a new designer in one of our smaller markets did some great work for an international client of ours and I had to tweak... that was over a year ago now.

This is just my experience, I understand it may not be the same everywhere, but the industry spoke out over the whole ID .vs. Quark issue a LONG time ago... I'd welcome your new perspective on things?

[Kevin]

Adobe DOES have an advantage because they do make the other two majorly used applications in graphic design. Photoshop and Illustrator. And they CAN make ID work better with these programs because of it, (Did Quark ever get that importing .psd files fixed?) Does Quark open InDesign files natively like InDesign does Quark? (I can open up Quark files in Indesign...)

Is it Adobe's fault it creates Applications that people want and need? And do it well?

Though having said that, this Adobe bridge, and other application crap it is attempting to bundle with the CS package is tired. They need to get rid of that crap.

This is just my experience, I understand it may not be the same everywhere, but the industry spoke out over the whole ID .vs. Quark issue a LONG time ago... I'd welcome your new perspective on things?

His perspective is basically "Adobe sucks and Quark is better" as he is given no real reasons Quark is better. Other than "because he says so"

They both are about equal feature wise. Indesign being a bit ahead of the game here. Esp with working with the other two major graphics applications. And it's ahead of the game price wise. Whether bundling it with the CS3 suite OR buying it separately.

It's not Adobe's fault that Quark has been overcharging for Express for all these years. And it has.

Graphic designers everywhere have been looking, begging, demanding something be put out that is better than Quark. Adobe stepped up to the plate, and hit a home run.

Most of the Quark Luddites I've met were ones that either

1. Simply knew Quark from using it for so long they don't want to switch.
2. Company makes the use Quark for whatever reason and they don't want to think they are using an inferior program while they work.

As not many people have really any other reason to be zealous about Quark.

And I am surely no Adobe shill. We had pagemaker bundled with our Adobe suite but I still had them buy my Quark. Quark was better than Pagemaker that is for sure.

And Indesign isn't ANYTHING like Pagemaker. Or I would simply not use it. I was actually a bit hesitant to even TRY Indesign because of my hatred of Pagemaker.

My First 5 years doing graphic design consisted of using three Applications.

1. Photoshop
2. Freehand
3. Quark.

I LOVED Freehand. That is until Illustrator 7 or 8 came out and I was simply dazzled by it's performance and features over Freehand at the time. So I switched.

Me using all Adobe products right now for what I do has noting to do with me being an Adobe fanboy, or zealot. It's just that they have their proverbial **** together right now.

If Quark comes out with an Indesign killer, and lowers it's price, I'd go back to it in a second. Regardless of the snotty customer support.

But as I see it, InDesign just keeps getting better and better. And CS3s new GUI makes Quarks look 5 years behind.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by JonoMarshall 

Umm, no zombies here, everyone i know who is < 30 and in the trade uses ID, all colleges (in the Uk at least) stopped pushing Quark (and 7 has failed to make an impact to change this trend).

I hope that Quark make some sort of come back (I am fluent in both packages, but use ID as I have been pushed in this direction) as competition is a good thing but I don't see it happening any time soon. (Adobe's suite and price point are an attractive offer, no?)

The last time I used Quark was because a new designer in one of our smaller markets did some great work for an international client of ours and I had to tweak... that was over a year ago now.

This is just my experience, I understand it may not be the same everywhere, but the industry spoke out over the whole ID .vs. Quark issue a LONG time ago... I'd welcome your new perspective on things?

It is great to be fluent on both QXP and ID and it is true very many younger designers use ID. Remarkably there are also a great many who use QXP.

I learned to use QXP when I was 19 so I am one of these young people who use QXP.

There is an amazing amount of young people who isn't old enough to have used QXP and still 'hate it'. I have no idea why. Maybe because it looks old and simple with few floating pallettes.

I don't know. All I know is QXP and ID can do the same things. I've had to use mid range to low range computers for designing so using ID has been a frustrating experience to say the least.

Whatever ID is, it isn't the fastest app around. Scrolling and live updating in Quark is much faster. Even on today's machines it is noticable. That's saying something.

QXP is a tool for a job as is ID. Pick the tool you prefer, but I guarantee there is nothing ID can do that QXP can't. So what's with the attitude towards QXP?

I'll never understand it. All I know is I've made massive amounts of money by using and relying on QXP and it ran fast and reliably on mid to low-end hardware.

That is my perspective and I'm far from being alone. However, ID is being used exclusively in many art-colleges, mostly because it is cheaper. This will mean a great many people are Quark illiterate.

You and me are one of the few who can use both. I wouldn't poke fun at you for using ID, even though I prefer QXP. I don't get that attitude. I really do not.

V

[voodoo]

Wanna dance Kevin?

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Me using all Adobe products right now for what I do has noting to do with me being an Adobe fanboy, or zealot.

It sure doesn't make you look very credible when you claim you're not an Adobe apologist.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

If Quark comes out with an Indesign killer, and lowers it's price, I'd go back to it in a second.

QXP 7 costs 799 USD from Quark. InDesign CS 3 costs 699 USD from Adobe. For those extra 100 dollars you get nice stuff like free on-line assistance for your product, frequent feature additions and updates as needed.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

And CS3s new GUI makes Quarks look 5 years behind.

Yes, if only QXP cluttered my monitor with inane floating pallettes, instead of the minimalistic and functional 3 pallettes of QXP.

If the GUI of QXP is the only thing you can whine about, then Quark has nothing to worry about.

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

It is great to be fluent on both QXP and ID and it is true very many younger designers use ID. Remarkably there are also a great many who use QXP.

Well here is an oldster than uses ID

There is an amazing amount of young people who isn't old enough to have used QXP and still 'hate it'. I have no idea why. Maybe because it looks old and simple with few floating pallettes.

Because they have used alternatives that were better?

I don't know. All I know is QXP and ID can do the same things. I've had to use mid range to low range computers for designing so using ID has been a frustrating experience to say the least.

Well stop using low end hardware for graphics work. For two QXP doesn't import say .psd files as easy as ID does.

Whatever ID is, it isn't the fastest app around. Scrolling and live updating in Quark is much faster. Even on today's machines it is noticable. That's saying something.

I don't notice a difference. And I am pretty darn picky about such a thing.

QXP is a tool for a job as is ID. Pick the tool you prefer, but I guarantee there is nothing ID can do that QXP can't. So what's with the attitude towards QXP?

Neither of us can really say that either way. And it's a preferences. If I can get a program I like better, that does the same things for cheaper, it's a no-brainer.

I'll never understand it. All I know is I've made massive amounts of money by using and relying on QXP and it ran fast and reliably on mid to low-end hardware.

So have I. but that doesn't mean if I get a tool that makes me the same amount of money and make it more enjoyable I will.

That is my perspective and I'm far from being alone. However, ID is being used exclusively in many art-colleges, mostly because it is cheaper. This will mean a great many people are Quark illiterate.

And will mean a great less Quark usage over all. The last 4 jobs I looked at ALL required Indesign knowledge. None mentioned Quark. Since Indesign can open Quark files natively there is no real need to KNOW Quark. Can Quark open InDesign files natively?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

Wanna dance Kevin?
It sure doesn't make you look very credible when you claim you're not an Adobe apologist.

For one, that made no sense. For two, how am I an adobe apologist when I JUST started using InDesign? When I used Quark all those years instead of Pagemaker. Or Freehand till Illustrator 7 or 8 kicked it's butt?
I use what is best/cheapest for the job.

QXP 7 costs 799 USD from Quark. InDesign CS 3 costs 699 USD from Adobe. For those extra 100 dollars you get nice stuff like free on-line assistance for your product, frequent feature additions and updates as needed.

But people don't buy them that way voodoo.

Say you just buy Photoshop $629 Illustrator $589 and Quark. $699 That will cost you $1,917

OR you can buy the CS3 suite for $1,179 (Which comes with Web developing tools too)

That's a almost $800 savings. Is Quark worth $800 Extra? I don't think so.

Yes, if only QXP cluttered my monitor with inane floating pallettes, instead of the minimalistic and functional 3 pallettes of QXP.

Or you could have a GUI that lets you set it anyway you want, and still not be cluttered like ID has.

If the GUI of QXP is the only thing you can whine about, then Quark has nothing to worry about.

Oh I given plenty more reasons than that. And it's a legitimate gripe. You trying to belittle it as a whine doesn't suddenly make it so.

Quark is slowly losing it's grip. And MOST Quark users now aren't using the newest versions. They are still running OS 9 using 4.11 or whatever that last version was for Classic.

You can always tell a who the Quark luddites are. They are the ones that bring Quark up in threads that have nothing to do with Quark.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

But people don't buy them that way voodoo.

I know that Kevin. Hence the Microsoft analogy.

Adobe uses established market-leading apps in market A to subsidise the way of a mediocre product in market B.

Like Microsoft uses Windows to pay the way for XBox, Adobe has used Photoshop to pay the way for InDesign.

Yes I mean pay, not pave.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Neither of us can really say that either way. And it's a preferences.

I know, then why are you honking and hissing against Quark? My preference is QXP, what is that your business?

Why the knee-jerk??

V

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I know that Kevin. Hence the Microsoft analogy.

Well I guess then you could compare Logitech to MS since they both sell mice..

Having an reasonably priced Application suite doesn't suddenly make a company Evil.

Adobe uses established market-leading apps in market A to subsidise the way of a mediocre product in market B.

Again, if that was the case, Pagemaker would have triumphed Quark because Adobe has been bundling these Applications and lowering the price since it has been around. Since Pagemaker however wasn't as good of an application as Quark, it simply didn't work. People would buy the bundle, keep Pagemaker for the few files that people who used pagemaker would send them, and buy Quark.

Ever since InDesign CS2 came out people have seen that hey... wait a minute, this thing actually is a great application! Not only that, people were WAITING for a Quark replacement because they were sick of dealing with Quark as a company. Why? Because at the time Quark had a monopoly a lot like MS did. And sat on their laurels and treated it's customers like they were the only game in town, who else you going to use?

So while the selling all of the applications together getting a better deal didn't HURT things, it's not what took away all that market share from Quark.

Like Microsoft uses Windows to pay the way for XBox, Adobe has used Photoshop to pay the way for InDesign.

Then why didn't it work for Pagemaker when they did the same thing?

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I know, then why are you honking and hissing against Quark? My preference is QXP, what is that your business?

LOL! For one this was a ID thread. You came in here hissing and honking about Adobe and bragging about Quark. Why did you do that? This thread isn't about Quark. Nor was anyone talking about Quark when you decided to go on your adobe-bash-o-thon that had nothing to do with the topic.

I don't care if you use Quark or like it. I really don't. I am just correcting your FUD you are spreading about Adobe.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

if that was the case, Pagemaker would have triumphed Quark because Adobe has been bundling these Applications and lowering the price since it has been around

I wrote 'mediocre product', such as InDesign. Not 'pathetic product', such as PageMaker.

You can tell the difference Kevin.

As for the rest, are you sure you are not dyslexic.. perhaps you have ADD? What is the reason you can't read and comprehend?

I'm just curious, no malice intended.

V

[Cadaver]

They both suck.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by voodoo 

I wrote 'mediocre product', such as InDesign. Not 'pathetic product', such as PageMaker.

You can tell the difference Kevin.

Not that it has any relevance to what I said. And IND is hardly mediocre. If it is, it must mean that Quark sucks badly for it to have taken all that share away from it.

As for the rest, are you sure you are not dyslexic.. perhaps you have ADD? What is the reason you can't read and comprehend?

Comprehend what? your verbal masturbations?

I'm just curious, no malice intended.

You know where liars go.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Not that it has any relevance to what I said. And Quark is hardly mediocre. If it is, it must mean that Indesign sucks badly for it to have taken all that share away from it.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Comprehend what? your verbal masturbations?

I just came... in your hand.. sorry about that

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You know where liars go.

You are going there. Soon.

V

[Kevin]

Ah so voodoo is showing his true colors.

You are going there. Soon.

I'll see ya there then.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ah so voodoo is showing his true colors.

Ah well I see you've already chosen yellow..

V

[Kevin]

I like blue actually.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

I like blue actually.

You just can't help yourself

Come on Kevin.. be my monkey.. reply to this post and be spanked

V

[Kevin]

Oh now it's the pretentious "You are my puppet and if you reply back that will prove it!!11. In other words, voodoo wants to get the last work, and he thinks by using reverse psychology on me, you know hoping I'll fall for the "If you reply u r my puppet" silliness trick.

Reverse psychology only works on those that are weaker in the mind that the person using said technique.

Really voodoo, why don't you just cut it out? That would impress a lot of people

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Ah so voodoo is showing his true colors.


I'll see ya there then.

Kevin you destroy almost every thread you post in.

[- - e r i k - -]

Funnily enough, so does voodoo.