How is Quark 6.0

sanderstar

Registered
Hi everybody..

I'm considering to upgrade to quark 6.0.

If any body have any experience with the newest version please share (good/bad)

Are there many bugs.

Are you satisfied with it..

Thanks

/A
 
Don't waste your money. There have been documented bugs within Quark that not only bloat the files it creates but also corrupts them. The shortcuts have changed in some of the most basic commands (such as "Save as" is NOT Command-shift-s, that command does "Add a faux shadow to the text")

On top of the very expensive price, you don't have service, I have heard a few posts about how when they try to call quarks hotline, nobody answers. I say, go with InDesign CS, infact, for the same price you can get QuarkXPress, you can get the whole Creative Suite from Adobe which includes Acrobat Pro, InDesign, Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, and VersionCue.

But other then hearing what people say here, go to a fellow designers who has Quark and ask if you could tet it out. I dare you to compare the two, — InDesign and Quark — do a 5 page document using placeholder text and stock images. Test out their PSD importing options, exporting to PDF, Typography control, Opentype compatibility, transparancy and colour managing, and you decide which one you would prefer.

p.s. quark has little to none of those items on the list where InDesign has leading edge controls.

Good Luck.
 
I think it sounds like sanderstar already _has_ Quark and only needs the update. So, probably, that would be the easier path than going InDesign CS. I haven't tried XPress in the past few versions myself, but I still agree that any version upgrade should be viewed as a chance to switch to InDesign.
 
fryke said:
I think it sounds like sanderstar already _has_ Quark and only needs the update. So, probably, that would be the easier path than going InDesign CS. I haven't tried XPress in the past few versions myself, but I still agree that any version upgrade should be viewed as a chance to switch to InDesign.

I already have v4.x

But I'm sick and tired of classic..

The problem isn't economic..

I also have InDesign 2

The problem is that I don't have time to use a week or so (at least) to get familiar with InDesign.

Unless I have to..

That's why I would like to get some feed-back from people that already have been using Qxp 6.0.

But I don't want to Buy the upgrade if it's worthless..

Thanks for response so far...
 
sanderstar said:
I already have v4.x

But I'm sick and tired of classic..

The problem isn't economic..

I also have InDesign 2

The problem is that I don't have time to use a week or so (at least) to get familiar with InDesign.

Unless I have to..

That's why I would like to get some feed-back from people that already have been using Qxp 6.0.

But I don't want to Buy the upgrade if it's worthless..

Thanks for response so far...

I agree with Potter, I work in Indesign CS and Quark 6 daily at my job doing Techincal Production work. Indesign far exceeds quark in many ways. Honestly if your fluent in Quark, Indesign will probably take about 4 hours to get up to par on. Many of the same features but using different ways and more economical ways to get there. The whole integration with photoshop and illustrator and even golive is seamless. Copy and pasting complicated vector paths from AI directly to InDD while keeping editable paths is just one nice feature. Quark 6 still relies on third party extensions to achieve what InDesign can do natively. So upgrade to Quark 6 but be prepared to buy newer versions of your 3rd party extensions as well. Exporting layers from InDesign directly to a Layered PDF is amazing. Try doing that in quark. Quarks layers still dont work correctly. Quark itself, is relying on legacy and assuming people will just upgrade because they have an older version of a file and dont want to convert it. Quarks tech support sucks, once they have your money they dont anything to do with you. I work for a very large publisher and quark doesnt give us anything in terms of support while Adobe answers whatever we need. InDesign will convert quark 4 files really good, just have to watch out for the color palette issues and will have to adjust formatting a little. Quark 6 will oopen a quark 4 files but will not save back to quark 4, so if you dont have quark 5 your stuck with version 6. Can be a nightmare if you run into issues. But ID 3 will not save down to ID 2 either, at least adobe will answer the phone when you call. Personally, I am InDesign all the way, if I never have to touch quark again, I am not losing any sleep over it. I really cant think of any reason or feature that I wold use quark over InDesign for, I can think of many reasons to use InDesign over Quark.
Just my 2 cents worth....
 
As a designer, I'd also take InDesign over Quark. If your company is going to pay for you to upgrade and there won't be compatability issues with other systems, front-end systems or printing equipment, then maybe you should consider it if you want to abandon Classic all together. Personally, I find 4.1 as still one of the most stable, if not THE most stable, of the Quark versions.
When you do need Quark, it can be a pain to work in Classic after being spoilt by OSX but Quark 6 still has some bugs to work out before it's on par with it's 4.+ line.
 
I was avoiding Quark but recently had to bite the bullet and upgrade. We print on an HP Indigo 1000 and Hewlett Packard doesn't make the software plug-ins we need for variable data and imposition for InDesign. I know that they are working on them, they have told me that much, but we just upgraded all our workstations to the G5 and booting into 9 for Quark 4 is no longer an option.

I can tell you, I was able to learn InDesign in just a few hours (although I kept pushing the wrong key combos for several weeks) and haven't looked back. I resisted the temptation to change InDesign's key commands to their Quark counterparts and boy am I glad I did. I am amazed at how much more streamlined the workflow is, it's like I can make things happen without thinking about what key I am pushing. Very cool.

I will only use Quark 6 for variable data jobs, which are infrequent (thank goodness) and for imposition templates for the press. Other than that, I'm not going to touch it.
 
I use Quark daily and much prefer it over InDesign. I can use both fluently, but just prefer Quark. Let the flames begin! ;)

Keep in mind, though, that Quark has a funky "save-down" scheme... Quark 6 can only save to Quark 6 and Quark 5 files. Quark 5 can only do 5 and 4... Quark 4 can only do 4 and 3... and so on... so if you need Quark 4 file compatibility, you'd be better off sticking with Quark 5, since Quark 6 doesn't do it.

The preference for InDesign or Quark just depends. Quark's technical support has gone downhill, but I've been using it since version 2 and have never had to make a call to support. Peoples' experiences vary.

I will say that InDesign is a good piece of work -- a worthy contender to Quark. Has it surpassed Quark in any way? I don't think so... is it on par with Quark? Sure. Is it different? MUCH different, if your abilities with those programs go beyond drawing boxes, importing pictures and typesetting. I still feel Quark has the most control over any imagesetter, but that's just my preference.

The only advantages to Quark 6 over Quark 5 are that it runs natively in OS X and has FREE full-resolution preview capabilities by way of a free plug-in.
 
I run both Quark 6 and Quark 5. Quark 6 is what I use when I'm designing something from scratch, like a brochure or a poster or something... I use Quark 5 (sometimes in OS 9, sometimes in Classic, depending on what needs to be done) when I'm working with client files, though, since they usually require Quark 4 compatiblity.

I like the stability of Quark 6 under OS X, but the speed of Quark 5 under OS 9 is better. Quark 5 in Classic is decent, too -- I don't prefer it, but have no trouble running it like that.
 
To me its funny how InDesign can compete with Quark after only 3 versions. Quark has been around for years and has had no serious improvements to there software but yet still charging outragous prices for it. Many large and small companies are now completely switching to InDesign over Quark because of the lack of technology that quark has shown. Just imagine what InDesign 6 will do....As for Quark, what has quark 5 done that quark 4 cant do besides web based stuff? Not to much. If any of you have seen or heard of quark 7, they are basically following InDesigns features. Seems to me that quark is now becoming a follower and whats even more suprising is that they dont seem to care.
 
Ah, but you forget that InDesign used to be Adobe PageMaker, essentially, which was purchased from a company named Aldus in the early 90s (It was originally Aldus PageMaker, and the first iteration of Adobe PageMaker was essentially a re-branded Aldus product). PageMaker's been around about as long as Quark has. PageMaker/InDesign is the one playing catch up, and they finally did it -- in a different way. Quark and InDesign are similar in a lot of respects and in terms of what they can do, but some things about them are extremely different, such as the organization of output options for color separations.

I agree, though, that Quark and InDesign are becoming more similar, but if you've been using them as long as I have, you'd see that PageMaker used to be VERY different from Quark in terms of layout. It was a PAIN to work with sometimes. PageMaker 7 and InDesign 1 brought radical change in the way PageMaker works, and that was because (drum-roll please...) it became more Quark-like in terms of how the pages were laid out.

I'm not saying Quark is better than InDesign nor vice-versa, but they are becoming much more "similar" in respects to how they operate and their user interface. One is not copying the other's features or anything like that... there are certain features that users need in terms of what those "kinds" of programs do (and since they do similar things, they need similar feature sets) and those features sometimes make it into Quark's new version first, and sometimes they make it into InDesign's new version first.

Where did you get your information on Quark 7? Can you post a link or a quote or something?
 
I agree with you about Pagemaker being a pain in the butt, I hated it for the longest time, any finally went to quark 3. However, Adobe knew this as well which is why InDesign came about. Pagemaker is still present and available but InDesign wasnt orginally Pagemaker. I do believe Pagemaker will be abandoned very soon as InDesign become more popular. I am sure that Adobe integrated all the features it could from both Pagemaker and quark to create InDesign. Why try and redesign something that already works. I believe what makes InDesign stand out is the fact that Adobe's R&D department was willing to work with the customers using there product and using there feedback to furthur better their product. I cant say that for quark. For me, the biggest reason for using InDesign is the fact that Adobe is always trying to come up with a better way of doing things. If you can do the same thing in 3 steps as opposed to 5 then Adobe tries to do that. Quark relies on 3rd party extensions to create shortcuts. Both are great programs and from what I am seeing Quark is quickly going downhill as a company. Many companies are getting frustrated with quark and are switching mainly because they dont want to deal with that. Quark is finally starting to realize that InDesign is a player and is taking away business so now they are playing catch up to InDesign with some of its features. I know a huge feature for us is integration with InDesign and Incopy. This creates an entirely paperless workflow for us saving thousands of dollars in paper cost and shipping costs.
We do a lot of R&D for all of our programs, being a leader in Book Publishing we get a lot of leeway and work very close with Adobe and Quark. I cant give you a quote specially for Quark 7 because this is what I hear from the higher ups. But what I do hear is that our company will not be pursuing a quark workflow anymore, mainly because they don't want to work with us on new features that can streamline work more efficiently, where as Adobe has given us beta versions of InDesign CS last June to give feedback. To me that makes all the difference. For the work that I do, There isnt anything that I cant do in Indesign that I can do in quark, plus I like how InDesign revamped its palettes and toolbars. I think its a very user friendly interface and that will appeal more to newcomers.
 
Thanks for all the replies..

You guys are drawing a pattern. In the way that I expected... I actually had a little glimpse of hope that there where a lot of satisfied users of Quark.. But for no reason. I use every little part of quark. I just have it in my fingertips. That is not something I can get with InDesign in a couple of hours. It's something that takes months. I have allready been work a little with InDesign on a private basis and I can see that the app really have what it takes. But I use it seldom and when I do it takes me at least 3-4 times the time i would have spent making it in quark..

But it looks like I should Go through InDesigns Classroom in a book. Hmm it seems like I just have to find the time..

What do you InDesigners do when the printhouse need a quarkfile for pressing the job?? Are there some work around other than selecting the printhouses that presses from the pdf, or sending the job to some prepress guy that uses CtP???

/A
 
When InDesign was young, we went to one place to make the films and brought them to the printer. Nowadays, we just bring ID 2 or 3 files to the printer.
 
I believe someone has already mentioned this but, Most printers want PDFs so it really shouldnt matter what native program they are created in. As a designer or even a comp house, do you trust your open files, whether they are quark or InDesign, with the printer? If the printer will not take PDFs then I would search for another printer. Why would the printhouse specifically request quark files? But if that is the case and they wont take anything else, then obviously it would have to be created in Quark. I dont believe quark 6 will open an InDesign file.
 
Most printers want PDFs

I know but Sometimes there are printers that can't use pdf. It doesn't mean that they are bad printers but just that they haven't invested in the prober equiptment..It is often something you will see in smaller print houses. They give a better price and you can use them for small and simple jobs without having to compromise with quality.

Why would the printhouse specifically request quark files?

If they make their plates them selves and don't hav CtP (Computer to Plate)..

But if that is the case and they wont take anything else, then obviously it would have to be created in Quark

It is not often I am in that situation but it happpens from time to time...

/A
 
I used Quark for a few years before switching to ID as soon as it became available. I didn't have any particular interest in switching, I just hopped on that early $150 (I think) early adopter price they had going. Couldn't pass that up. I tried ID for a little while, just for kicks. About half an hour into it I realized Quark was dead to me.

Just to prove it to myself, I prepared a medium complicated multi-page layout using both apps side by side. ID crushed Quark. And I know (knew) Quark pretty well. I suppose if you had a bunch of plugins for Quark you could come close, but just the native Photoshop/AI support with transparencies was HUGE to me. Clipping paths became DEAD.

And the typograhy handling, puh-lease. I just proofed a 64 page tourism piece that a subcontractor designer of mine did for me, but he used Quark. Criminy that type is handled so poorly by default. He doesn't have the eye for top notch typography, but had he used InDesign he would have been miles closer to something that looks high end right out of the gate.

And don't even get me started on PDf export handling with ID over Quark.

Someone asked how we ID-ers handle getting files to printers if they demand Quark. I told my printers to &$^# themselves and get Indesign or I'll use the guy across the street. They did. For those printers that I have to use that I can't control as easily, I just give em EPS files or PDFs. Works like a charm.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone has to use Quark on the design end unless they prefer it. Inside the print shop might be a different story depending on their equipment, but that's not my problem. They either get with the program or I go elsewhere, which I did with my two top printers. Now I'm using CtP printers with great proofing technology and ability to take my native ID files. Yum!

The only thing I miss about Quark was its insane speed. I gather it started slowing down like ID when it integrated higher quality previews, right? But back in the day, that app was super fast even on crappy hardware.
 
Another freelance graphic designer chimes in… :)

Just use Quark 4.1 in Classic. There's hardly any hassles (unless you create lots of tables in which case you might want to just get InDesign. The Quark upgrade will set you back almost as much as the full version of InDesign CS. I work in Mac OS 10.2.8 and hardly EVER crash, even using 4.1 in Classic.

Beware of Quark because when a company I work for every month upgraded to 6, they had printing problems as a direct result with a conflict with OS X 10.3 (panther) but the apple update fixed it.

Quark 6 is not worth it. Plain and simple.
 
Back
Top