[MW Forums]

The coordinators of Seybold Chicago have announced that Quark will publicly demo QuarkXPress 7 there for the first time. more

[tomottoe]

Maybe with version 7 they'll have implemented screen redraw that works. :-O
One last client to wean off of Quark and I'll be 100% InDesign.
Thank heaven.

[iron_chef]

who's Quark?
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[fultonkbd]

I use both, Quark 6.5 at work and Indesign CS at home/freelance work. I have been using Quark since version 3 and like it. But I have learned to love Indesign now that I'm on a faster PowerMac. I couldn't stand using it on my old G4, it ran like a dog. Quark on the other hand seems to move along very well on a slower computer.
Of course given a choice, I'll take the faster PowerMac and Indesign any day. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Grapho]

What you say is right. Quark dose not need the stringent hardware specifications that InDesign requires, but if anybody is using the CS2 suite, it sure gives designers flexibility as far as work flow goes. Unfortunately in my case we run an HP Indigo press. HP and Quark have worked together to create plugins for Quark that make it work very seamlessly with the Indigo press and we can even do VDP that can have pretty complex variables to create very specific 1 to 1 marketing printing. I just hope that Quark 7 is a lot better then what they have now because as it stands now, it still has problems reading certain PDF files correctly, among other problems.

[maeric]

I am actually looking forward to upgrading to QuarkXPress 7. This looks like it will finally get features close to InDesign rather than that goofy detour XPress took into Web integration. And finally Unicode type support will come in 7.
I do a lot of book production and use QuarkXPress exclusively. I like the management it has with long documents. I use InDesign for ALL my smaller or more design oriented pieces where I can work fast and creatively. As it is now, QuarkXPress is a workhorse; Indesign is a thoroughbred but each has their place in my workflow. It all depends on the project.

[Uncle_Deercamp]

Quark? Aren't they just like Iomega: A company that used to matter?

[uchuugaka]

honestly, I've used both.
quark 4 did have a certain logic to it. (sans tables)
both still lack color palettes that follow any paradigm used in all other apps. this is annoying as hell, esp when roughing out a design.
indesign tries to hard to look like photoshop and illustrator and is quickly reaching their level of bloat, w/out the stability.
I've successfully used indesign, but every version is a different beast.
I find neither one to be intuitive, most of the time. Pagemaker was.
Quark usually does have a method to do something. Indesign usually doesn't have what I am looking for.
The "native" PSD and AI support is kinda bogus, because as much as they want it to work, it doesn't.
and as bloated as it's become, you certainly can't run indesign at the same time you run PS or AI!
talk about crash city. Even on a pumped up G5 w/loads o' ram.
And finally even Indesign has spotty redraw.
This is absurd.
Illustrator's full preview redraw is almost always on for most folks since version 8.
Performance wise, I will take quark only because Adobe CS and especially CS2 are such bloated wet dogs. PS and AI especially do nothing particularly useful or new in 5 years time.
CS2's only plus is finally including the functionality of Streamline in Illustrator, when it isn't crashing under it's own weight.

[JMStafford]

In reply to:

---

Performance wise, I will take quark only because Adobe CS and especially CS2 are such bloated wet dogs.

---

Are you still running Quark 4 under Classic?