[kwill]

To dethrone QuarkXPress, Adobe competitively priced CS; I think it was something like $699 for the pro version if you had a registered copy of Photoshop. I am not certain what upgrade pricing will be when CS3 comes out but the full retail cost is expected to be $1900, whereas CS2 is currently $1200.
The increasing cost of CS came to my attention when considering attending the ADIM seminar for $2100 that includes a free copy of Photoshop CS3 "worth $1900."
Even with all the pent-up demand for a universal binary version of CS, is it possible that Adobe can go too far with prices -- to the point of making QuarkXPrress relevant again?

[Hugolino]

Very possible.
I've used both InDesign and Quark Xpress, and for now I'm still sticking with Quark Xpress for several reasons. One of those reasons is simply that Quark is a company dedicated exclusively to one software program, Xpress. Their entire livelihood and survival is at stake in making the right software for the current market, and you can bet they're scrambling to keep their diminishing lead in the competition with Adobe right now. Whereas Adobe is the five ton gorilla that has far less riding on InDesign and has a growing stranglehold on the creative design software market. And monopolies are rarely a good thing.

[almaink]

I disagree. Quack doesn't listen to what it's customers want or need. When they added web features in version 5 the application started to get bloated. Nobody asked for this. The rewrite of the application for OSX was and is a joke. It's slow, still doesn't render text correctly and their idea of hi res screen previews leaves much to be desired. Do even get me started on the way Quack handles PDF export and import or the fact that it can't "see" fonts that every other application sees just fine! As for Quack being one company making one application you are wrong, they make a bunch of different applications and seem to be adding new ones all the time. Remember Adobe wrote the postscript standard and they implement it in all their applications. Quack on the other-hand doesn't and the version hacks to postscript they have added over the years just adds to prepress frustration. Back in the day I was one of Quarks stanchest supporters, but no longer.

[Hugolino]

Quote:

---

I disagree. Quack doesn't listen to what it's customers want or need.

---

And yes, a Quack doesn't echo either. John smiles
I'm sorry your experience has been so negative. I've used Quark professionally without problems, but perhaps that is dumb luck. I did have problems when I tried InDesign however about a year ago. But once again perhaps that was just my particular luck.
As for Quark's other products... they're all closely related to Quark Xpress so I didn't even consider them separate. But you're right. At the same time their portfolio is far far narrower than Adobe's, and I have not been happy with Adobe's swallowing up of other beloved software companies in recent years. But that's me. Others might rejoice.

[kwill]

Quote:

---

Quack doesn't listen to what it's customers want or need.

---

This indeed is the general sentiment of most users. Although in the prepress industry nearly 30 years, I did not make the leap to digital until 1989. At the time QuarkXPress had unseated Aldus PageMaker. So QuarkXPress and Aldus FreeHand became my applications of choice. I grew quite proficient -- even teaching classes in advanced XPress.
Reluctantly, I left XPress and made the move to InDesign when the first CS arrived. Adobe, angered by Quark's hostile takeover attempt, included Q->ID file conversion and attractive crossgrade pricing. At the time, Quark lost its focus, releasing a major "upgrade" with Web tools that did not even run in OS X. So making the switch to InDesign was, based on economics and features, a smart business move. InDesign offers a cleaner interface and better output options.
Quark outsourced programming to developing countries which may have contributed to so many bugs when finally going OS X native. In such situations even proper managerial delegation can get lost in the translation. Quark used to block users from running a prior version of XPress once a new product was activated. There were some other oddball interim version upgrades required for OS X and Classic documents to interact. Since then, with the top brass replaced, upgrade pricing and restrictions were relaxed. Quark has really tried to reach out to customers. I received numerous emails with attractive upgrade pricing and even a phone call urging me to consider coming back. (I politely declined.)
Initially, InDesign was a svelte native application that was to gain productivity through plug-ins (similar to XTensions). This was supposed to keep it from becoming bloatware. However, users of CS2 have occasionally complained that the program is becoming sluggish and Illustrator continues to be buggy and crash prone. Meanwhile Adobe pricing is spiraling out of control while applications consume even more resources. (Adobe Photoshop CS3 beta is a 750MB download.)
Adobe's integration of its major applications into Creative Suites was a formidable marketing move. Quark is in a tough position; it must convince users that digital assets can still be easily repurposed with XPress. Hence, we see what appears to be a loss of focus as Interactive Designer and Web tools are touted. I don't think Quark should attempt to replace Adobe CSx. Rather, it should focus on a replacement for one component of the Suite, InDesign. Reestablish itself as a premium page layout application that integrates well with Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash and Dreamweaver. This is because most users will still purchase CS if they require at least two of its components.
Though Quark was first out the door with a Universal Binary version of its flagship page layout software, it doesn't seem that version 7 is the one that will persuade prior defectors. If, however, Quark keeps listening to customers, trims the bloat, squashes the bugs, updates its interface, and remains price competitive, I do feel they will have a chance to once again become a worthy contender. I don't expect they will have a dominant marketshare; at most they could become popular enough that design studios would have a copy of both QuarkXPress and InDesign.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

while applications consume even more resources. (Adobe Photoshop CS3 beta is a 750MB download.)

---

A lot of apps I have just about doubled in size recently because they're Universal, and that goes all the way down to the shareware apps I use.
The Mac Photoshop download is about double the size of the Windows download.
You might find apps halve in size again after PPCs become extinct or developers abandon PPC.

[almaink]

Or get Trim the Fat. It removes the Intel stuff and leave the PPC stuff intact freeing up disk space.
http://www.versiontr...fo/macosx/28882

[semiotics101]

ANY CS line Adobe puts out right now is gonna rock. Their upgrades are totally affordable too. If anyone out there over-complains about the price, well ...maybe they should kick more butt learning the programs and then they (the Designer) will more money /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
For us, Adobe hasn't fallen short in their major upgrades - except for perhaps it took them a ZILLION years to nix Streamline and switching back and fourth to Flash and AI to trace a stupid bitmap was getting annoying. Ha! So they bought the company.
Anyway I'm rambling. Quark killed their loyal customers. Enough said. Adobe capitalized. Business is business. I'd say wait for CS3. You've waited this long...