binaryDigit
Registered
They even took down the Apple Store to announce it. The line forms at the left 
OSX Quark 6.0 finally here
- Thread starter binaryDigit
- Start date
evildan
Super Moderator
I'm done with Quark, I'll use Adobe InDesign thank you very much... Yeah, I've been using that for some time, back when Quark promised to release their OSX version last time.
It doesn't do a company well to have such delays in their product, especially since they have had a beta floating around the net for over six months now.
It pains me to pass up the little guy, especially since their products are usually top notch, but in this case, I'm going with the bigger guy.
It doesn't do a company well to have such delays in their product, especially since they have had a beta floating around the net for over six months now.
It pains me to pass up the little guy, especially since their products are usually top notch, but in this case, I'm going with the bigger guy.
Arden
Where mah "any" keys at?
You can order Quark 6 from the Apple Store right now.
The funny thing is, many either don't plan to drop the money to upgrade for a long time, or they've already gone to Indesign. I'm sure Quark will sell well, but I doubt QX6 will be the über-1337 program its predecessors were.
The funny thing is, many either don't plan to drop the money to upgrade for a long time, or they've already gone to Indesign. I'm sure Quark will sell well, but I doubt QX6 will be the über-1337 program its predecessors were.
hulkaros
The Incredible...
I don't know if the following will work for Quark but here they are anyways:
"Better late than never"
or
"Better late than sorry"
I cannot say anything for InDesign vs XPress other than I know for a fact that many companies still use v3.x of XPress...
EDIT: Thank you Toast!
"Better late than never"
or
"Better late than sorry"
I cannot say anything for InDesign vs XPress other than I know for a fact that many companies still use v3.x of XPress...
EDIT: Thank you Toast!
Jack Hammer
Registered
sorry to inform you folks but Quark has a monopoly on design/ad houses. they have a decade's worth of OS9 quark files they need to open. you can see OSX sales go up next january when these companies plan for upgrades in the new fiscal Q1 when budgets are estimated.
Indesign IMO is a bad implementation of Quark. In recent additions better but the simpliciy inherent in Quark is something Indesign does not get.
Indesign IMO is a bad implementation of Quark. In recent additions better but the simpliciy inherent in Quark is something Indesign does not get.
*cough*
Please don't compare Indy and XPress like that.
While XPress has a long history and very, very good support from third parties (extension makers and print houses alike), Indy can't compare there (yet).
However: If you're acquainted with other Adobe products and want to do brochures, magazines or even books, InDesign is your best friend.
And never forget: 'Type' has been redefined by InDesign. Quark XPress is no match at all concerning type, the handling of fonts and graphics. XPress 6 might catch up a little concerning graphics, but they have a long way to go with type. And we all know how long Quark's long ways are...
Please don't compare Indy and XPress like that.
While XPress has a long history and very, very good support from third parties (extension makers and print houses alike), Indy can't compare there (yet).
However: If you're acquainted with other Adobe products and want to do brochures, magazines or even books, InDesign is your best friend.
And never forget: 'Type' has been redefined by InDesign. Quark XPress is no match at all concerning type, the handling of fonts and graphics. XPress 6 might catch up a little concerning graphics, but they have a long way to go with type. And we all know how long Quark's long ways are...
John Philip
Just Member
You are right - of course - but there are excellent remedies for that already.
Check out:
http://www.cacidi.com/
Choose: Software
Find: Q-to-InDesign-Batch 2.0
a USD 65 util that converts QX files to InDesign perfectly...
I have tried and seen a lot of 'converters' over time - but this one is one of the most perfectly working ones - and I do not get paid by Cacidi for saying so (-:<
John Philip
PS.: You can download a 2 week working demo and try it yourself...
serpicolugnut
OS X Supreme Being
It will be interesting to see how many of the iWhiners (OS 9 users) that will actually upgrade to OS X now that their major excuse is toast. Of course, Quark gave them another excuse - pricing. The upgrade prices aren't horrible (they aren't great, either) - but the cost of a new license... $1045? Please - InDesign is 33% cheaper.
Here's the real test...
60 days after the release of Xpress 6, call you local service bureaus and see how many of them will accept Xpress 6 files. This will be the true barometer of Apple's pro sales....
Here's the real test...
60 days after the release of Xpress 6, call you local service bureaus and see how many of them will accept Xpress 6 files. This will be the true barometer of Apple's pro sales....
toast
Gone !
hulkaros:
I cannot say anything for InDesign vs Express other than I know for a fact that many companies still use v3.x of Express...
1) QuarkXPress.
2) Companies use the software that go with their RIP. If your RIP is Harlequin, no use to upgrade over QXP4.
Jack Hammer:
sorry to inform you folks but Quark has a monopoly on design/ad houses. they have a decade's worth of OS9 quark files they need to open
More exactly PRINThouses monopolize Quark. Quark communicates with all RIPs, while some ID features (transparency, for instance) require level 3 PostScripting.
fryke:
While XPress has a long history and very, very good support from third parties (extension makers and print houses alike), Indy can't compare there (yet).
That was true... in the past. Some companies are still struggling to upgrade their XTensions from 4 to 5 (Markzware, Gluon usw). QXP6 will definitively kill their v5 work. Bad bad bad plan XTensions aren't made backwards compatible.
John Philip:
a USD 65 util that converts QX files to InDesign perfectly...
False. Try to convert trappings, bleeds or complex clipping paths and you'll get the program fcuked up. This convertor works only with simple low-end Quarks, most print-orientated Quark files will pathetically crash here.
---
Most people I know bnever upgraded to v5, and v6's price looks so much like national debt that nobody's upgrading. What for anyway ? Nobody cares about XML. Plus, the only important thing is to have your software in sync with your hardware. Your software must be as close as possible to your RIP definitions and drivers. This is why Quark 4 is the reference and this is why InDesign is nice, but is not a competitor for the moment in many places.
Comparison between Quark and Adobe is possible only where RIPs support PostScript 3, and that's not everywhere at all. Ask your printhouse if they support PS Lvl 3, there you are.
I cannot say anything for InDesign vs Express other than I know for a fact that many companies still use v3.x of Express...
1) QuarkXPress.
2) Companies use the software that go with their RIP. If your RIP is Harlequin, no use to upgrade over QXP4.
Jack Hammer:
sorry to inform you folks but Quark has a monopoly on design/ad houses. they have a decade's worth of OS9 quark files they need to open
More exactly PRINThouses monopolize Quark. Quark communicates with all RIPs, while some ID features (transparency, for instance) require level 3 PostScripting.
fryke:
While XPress has a long history and very, very good support from third parties (extension makers and print houses alike), Indy can't compare there (yet).
That was true... in the past. Some companies are still struggling to upgrade their XTensions from 4 to 5 (Markzware, Gluon usw). QXP6 will definitively kill their v5 work. Bad bad bad plan XTensions aren't made backwards compatible.
John Philip:
a USD 65 util that converts QX files to InDesign perfectly...
False. Try to convert trappings, bleeds or complex clipping paths and you'll get the program fcuked up. This convertor works only with simple low-end Quarks, most print-orientated Quark files will pathetically crash here.
---
Most people I know bnever upgraded to v5, and v6's price looks so much like national debt that nobody's upgrading. What for anyway ? Nobody cares about XML. Plus, the only important thing is to have your software in sync with your hardware. Your software must be as close as possible to your RIP definitions and drivers. This is why Quark 4 is the reference and this is why InDesign is nice, but is not a competitor for the moment in many places.
Comparison between Quark and Adobe is possible only where RIPs support PostScript 3, and that's not everywhere at all. Ask your printhouse if they support PS Lvl 3, there you are.
Quark is the Microsoft of publishing and always will be. End of story. They are too entrenched. InDesign had forever and a day to gain ground and barely made a scratch.
For the record, I dumped Quark as soon as I tested the demo of ID 1.0. Built-in PDF export, Preflighting, OpenType fonts, true transparency support, native PSD/AI support...the list goes on and Quark 6 still hasn't addressed some of those.
Having said that, Adobe needs to do some serious work in making sure Postscript and PDF solutions are what they claim. I can print to a postscript driver and get different results than if I save as an EPS or a PDF (strokes messed up, fonts replaced or missing, etc.). There is no excuse for this given that Adobe owns Postscript and PDF technology. Lame.
Also, Indesign's built-in PDF export isn't even their recommended method of creating PDFs! They still say (as do my printer and newspaper sources) that printing to Postscript and Distilling it is the "proper" way to go. So much for a streamlined PDF workflow. To further confuse things, the new Acrobat recommends printing to the Adobe PDF driver (which I have yet to get to work, takes forever and never ends). Adobe needs some serious work in these areas.
Last year I used Quark and InDesign side by side to create the exact same fairly complicated layout. When it was all said and done, there was no comparison. Indesign crushed Quark in terms of workflow. The only thing I ever missed from Quark was its speed.
If I can upgrade for $200 from my old 3.3, then I'll do it in a second, otherwise I'll just wait and see how the industry adopts Quark 6 (which is sure to be a very slow transition--I suspect a couple of years before Q6 takes hold).
For the record, I dumped Quark as soon as I tested the demo of ID 1.0. Built-in PDF export, Preflighting, OpenType fonts, true transparency support, native PSD/AI support...the list goes on and Quark 6 still hasn't addressed some of those.
Having said that, Adobe needs to do some serious work in making sure Postscript and PDF solutions are what they claim. I can print to a postscript driver and get different results than if I save as an EPS or a PDF (strokes messed up, fonts replaced or missing, etc.). There is no excuse for this given that Adobe owns Postscript and PDF technology. Lame.
Also, Indesign's built-in PDF export isn't even their recommended method of creating PDFs! They still say (as do my printer and newspaper sources) that printing to Postscript and Distilling it is the "proper" way to go. So much for a streamlined PDF workflow. To further confuse things, the new Acrobat recommends printing to the Adobe PDF driver (which I have yet to get to work, takes forever and never ends). Adobe needs some serious work in these areas.
Last year I used Quark and InDesign side by side to create the exact same fairly complicated layout. When it was all said and done, there was no comparison. Indesign crushed Quark in terms of workflow. The only thing I ever missed from Quark was its speed.
If I can upgrade for $200 from my old 3.3, then I'll do it in a second, otherwise I'll just wait and see how the industry adopts Quark 6 (which is sure to be a very slow transition--I suspect a couple of years before Q6 takes hold).
ApeintheShell
Registered
I am not a designer nor work for the publishing/print industry.
But i can say that the company, Quark, has no direction. The evidence is clear from the late release date.
In addition, Adobe took advantage of the gap and i'm sure there are companies using InDesign.
Will Quark X Press be a success on Mac OS X? This depends on the public's patience which dwindles each time an app is delayed for the OS X platform.
and panther said meowrrr
But i can say that the company, Quark, has no direction. The evidence is clear from the late release date.
In addition, Adobe took advantage of the gap and i'm sure there are companies using InDesign.
Will Quark X Press be a success on Mac OS X? This depends on the public's patience which dwindles each time an app is delayed for the OS X platform.
and panther said meowrrr
toast
Gone !
Quark X will not become a Mac OS X success simply because Mac OS X, at the very basis, is not a success in the DTP industry. Designers have switched, but not all. Printhouses are even fewer to claim switching.
Speed is becoming an issue. Quark X is sloooooow on many machines (just like InDesign is). Ouch...
Speed is becoming an issue. Quark X is sloooooow on many machines (just like InDesign is). Ouch...
Jack Hammer
Registered
TOAST:
Well, at this point they are both too ingrained in Quark. In my company even the inhouse has too much to ever switch to InDesign.
FRYKE:
InDesign better than Quark? That's your opinion InDesign has nifty new features but Quark lets you set type much more easily. I guess it depends on how and what kind of project you work on. Corporate or advertising wise...the quark files are not really that complicated to begin with in that the type tool needed to be improved dramatically. For the home user i would think that Indesign cheats for them and is more AOLish in handling type. I like to see competition but i'd rather have another great version of Quark than InDesign to replace Quark.
monktus
Registered
I don't do as much DTP work as I used to but I've been using InDesign mostly for a few years. I had a job recently that I had to use Quark for and I found it strange going back. I did notice a speed difference - Quark was faster than ID 2 - but in terms of productivity I found I much preferred ID. Graphics handling especially is much better. I wouldn't say that ID is AOLish at all, it just has a much better interface than Quark and incorporates a lot of stuff that make other Adobe products so successful. I'll be interested to see what Quark 6 is like.
Of course the comments in other posts about design companies and especially printers being reluctant moving to ID or even newer versions of Quark are entirely right. Everyone will move to osx eventually but even if you're a company not doing much DTP as previously, the costs in cash and time to change OS are quite high. When 10.1 came out I got into OSX quite quickly but I can understand the difficulty in migrating in industry.
Of course the comments in other posts about design companies and especially printers being reluctant moving to ID or even newer versions of Quark are entirely right. Everyone will move to osx eventually but even if you're a company not doing much DTP as previously, the costs in cash and time to change OS are quite high. When 10.1 came out I got into OSX quite quickly but I can understand the difficulty in migrating in industry.
Jack Hammer
Registered
when i said AOLish...
i meant it in a good way, it sets type for you optically better but i like quark because it lets the talent of the designer determine the typesetting
i meant it in a good way, it sets type for you optically better but i like quark because it lets the talent of the designer determine the typesetting