[dylmonster]

I'm just smiling... that's all. Sitting here and smiling as I think about our 300+ ad firm switching to InDesign later this year. Hear that, Quark?. That means about 150 licenses that won't get renewed. Good riddance.

[ruthohare]

In reply to:

---

I loved the part about Quark concentrating on making "good software" rather than marketing. Man, these guys have a great sense of humor.

---

Indeed! If what we have now just WORKED I might not hate them, but no, it's buggy as all get out and do they release fixes? Do they heck! They don't even admit that the bugs exist and good luck calling tech support! I don't see wasting any more money on them, we only went to version 6 because of OSX, 4.41 worked fine. 6.5 managed to introduce new bugs so we went back to 6.1. Roll on inDesign!
Quark, rotten company, even worse software.

[PCisPieceOfCrap]

Freehand? Why? It is more of a dinosaur than Xpress.

[Nobody]

At the top of the page as I type this is an ad for, you guessed it, QuarkXPress. Big ad, well placed. Expensive.
I use both XPress and InDesign. I prefer InDesign. There are some things I like better about XPress: dialog boxes which I can access from the keyboard, make changes from the keyboard, and never pick up a mouse. For me, that's more difficult with InDesign. But I do find it much easier to manage a big project with InDesign. Adobe really got it right.
I do not care one way or another about the XPress interace. It's good software and enables me to work quickly and accurately, but I find that InDesign is better for my purposes.
From reading the posts in this thread, it appears that this community, at least, has given up on Quark. I agree with every negative comment about the company which I have read. I was frequently treatetd with, well, disdain, when calling Denver for help. Yep, it was that long ago. XPress was so much better than the competition that Quark didn't concern itself with customer attitudes. It appears there is a price to pay for that.
I did not read anything in the article which makes me think things will improve for Quark or its customers.

[PetComputer]

Quark is an example of one rusty company/piece of software... Everything's happening to it so slowly and conservatively... and yet it's impossible to get rid of it completely

[peekabo0]

I disagree with your rebuttal as I have been an avid user of XPress since version 3 to the current 6.5. I work for a publishing firm preflighting ads for 100's of magazines where we primarily accept PDF (generic or X1-a) rather than app files. Twice I had to reinstall QuarkXPress 6 on company computers and in both instances it was extremely effortless. All I had to do was call their free TS and get a new bump code to intialize the software.
You say it doesn't work as well, in what way. The biggest bonus for my work is the exceptional PDF (JAWS) engine which renders PDF's so much faster and much more compact than Distiller. In fact I have yet to use Distiller 6 at work (we use Pitstop to preflight PDF's instead). I have always liked the fact that each QXP UG has not meant reteaching myself how to use XPress. Granted v 6 discontinued some shortcuts but it has been painless to use at work whenever I need to work with an app file instead of a press PDF. IMHO both Adobe and Quark have pros and cons with their software but I will continue to use QuarkXPress simply because it is so powerful yet simple to use. Yes I have had problems with XPress but I can easliy say the same for Photosop, Acrobat, Illustrator, Freehand, Painter, Live Picture, Suitcase etc.

[peekabo0]

I am curious to know how Macs with upcoming Intel chips will affect Quark software any different than software from other vendors. I realize not all software is written the same but still is there one single aspect of Quark code that distinguishes it from ALL other SW vendors?

[peekabo0]

Since Quark introduced free TS last year I believe, I have called them three times and in each case they solved the issue quickly. First was an issue I had when UGing from QLA2 to QLA3, second was with a font issue that was really on OSX setting, and lastly a recent nuisance I had with a corupt error message when exporting PDF's from XPress 6.5 (Mac). Having dealt with TS with various SW vendors over the past 11 years I was used to get standard "just re-install this or update your drivers etc" responses. That has to be the case with my experiences with Quark's TS for which I am surprised and very impressed. Also they officially give their CDN TS number as a long distance call but in ALL the cases I mentioned, I was able and allowed to use their US 1-800-676-4575 number.
Cool!

[peekabo0]

I won't say that I have never had problems with any version of QXP but in the past 15y but overall it has been exceptionly easy and productive for my business and personal use. I am perplexed at people (designers no doubt) who claim QuarkXPress ALWAYS crashes NEVER works or as I quote from the Quark forum recently "Nothing comes with the program" Really, if that is the case then all the installs I have done have all just magically included XTensions that do nothing? True it is not as sexy as INDesign 3 or 4 but as many co-workers I know say "Do it in Quark because it is easier and works". Considering this "designer" also complained that it is a Holy pain to use because if you want to make more than one picture box you have to repeatedly swith between the arrow tool (umm there is no arrow tool) and the picture box tool. Hmm what do they teach designers at school. There is this thing called a command key that when pressed first allows one to keep using the same tool without reverting to the content or item (not arrow) tool.
Persdonally I Laugh at all those who shoot first and NEVER ask questions later (their just too busy complaining or blogging).

[moose_n_squirrel]

In reply to:

---

The biggest bonus for my work is the exceptional PDF (JAWS) engine which renders PDF's so much faster and much more compact than Distiller. In fact I have yet to use Distiller 6 at work (we use Pitstop to preflight PDF's instead).

---

But InDesign users don't need Distiller either. We use InDesign's built-in PDF export. It's like Quark's JAWS, except it's an actual Adobe PDF engine, and man is it fast. The PDF export has been in there for at least the last two versions...I haven't run Distiller itself in like forever.
And Distiller 6, that's not even the current version anymore. They're up to 7.
I'm not dissing you...just pointing out the outdated information in the post. Gotta compare apples to apples.

[peekabo0]

I realize I am the only one here supporting Quark but I simply can't believe the level of angst over something I have used mostly, not completely, trouble-free for over a decade now both at home, for a design house, and currently a major publishing dept.
>Quark 6 is basically Quark 4 running on OS X, add in a few minor, non-useful features (Quark layers are and always have been a joke)
Really, I have QXP4 on my home PM9500 and last I saw it does not souly:
1. export PDF's without Distiller
2. support basic PSD files AND allow for manipulation of layer effects
3. allow for multiple page sizes within the same document
4. have multiple undo
5. support current Pantone color specs
6. support basic OT font features
7. have any layers (yes I use layers in QXP5 and 6 just fine)
8. support DeviceN color in PDF's
9. have any PS-like filter effects (non-destructive to boot)
10. have the ability to create web pages on its own
11. collect fonts for output
12. preview bleeds when printing
13. have the ability to set crop, trim or bleed boxes of PDF's
14. have the option to save an EPS with a transparent bkgnd
15. spellcheck a text selection
These are anything but non-useful for me especially direct PDF support that is spades faster than Distiller
> because it treats it's customers like crap
Really, than howcome they solved each of the three TS calls I placed to their recently introduced free TS line AND reactivated licenses twice on two different G4's (re-install not new computer) and did so painlessly with no down time?

[cbphoto]

Plain and simple: Quark's customer service is the worst in the publishing industry (worse than Corel) and their licensing policies are combersome and convoluted.

[Nobody]

In reply to:

---

I realize I am the only one here supporting Quark but I simply can't believe the level of angst over something I have used mostly, not completely, trouble-free for over a decade now both at home, for a design house, and currently a major publishing dept.

---

It's kind of futile trying to defend Quark on this board. Anytime there's a posting about Quark, the haters come out of the woodwork and try to squash anyone who posts anything even remotely favorable about Quark. Let it go. It's software, folks, not a religion.
I use both programs, they each have their pros and cons. I've been using QXP since 3.11 and INDD since 1.5. And I have had similar experiences as yours. I work for a small-mid size printer, we have to use whatever the market brings us. We don't see a lot of INDD work, maybe about 30%. Out of our 100% we include PageMaker and MS Publisher, too. We get all kinds of crap. I'm always happy to see a Quark (or InDesign) file that is properly collected. At least we have a pretty good shot at getting the work out.
Use whatever works for you. Peace.

[peekabo0]

The reason I mentioned Distiller 6 is that is what our company uses. I realize the current version is 7. Yes INDy renders PDF's quickly but there are many PDF engines out there, for example we use CREO Prinergy for our PDF workflow.