Quark has always been a greedy, self-centered company, but they've really gone out of their way to fleece their customers this time. Visit the Quark Web site and you will see that v.5 is $899 (OMG!) and if you want the two volume manual, they will charge $50 more. The manuals are .pdf only. They are actually charging $50 for a .pdf file. OMG!
It is about time they improved the collect for output feature. That should have been a free upgrade years ago. No more of my money will go to Quark.
They have terrible customer service, so if this very expensive program with no manual doesn't work, you will be on your own.
InDesign is a losing proposition as well. Maybe we should all go back to using PageMaker.
From reading this review, I'd have to say this is far from a must-have upgrade for XPress users. The list of new features is less than compelling and the most important new feature that should have been there is missing - XPress 5 is not OS X native. What is Quark smoking over there in Denver? It'll take a few years, but this is probably the turning point in the XPress/InDesign battle. Start saying good-bye to XPress.
The reviewer completely neglects the strongest aspect of Quark for many years. It has always been a program which will cause you very few problems when it comes to output. For anyone who has ever worked in pre-press, or if you would like your files to output correctly, Quark has always been the best bet. Don't even try to use a duotone in InDesign and the "useful" text tools will probably not print right either. Maybe I'm jaded...but maybe these programs should stop trying to add bells an whistles until they figure out how to make them output in the end usage.
I have to jump in here as I feel like I've been in the middle of the ID vs QXP fray for some time now. There are a couple of issues: 1) how good is this version of QXP and 2) how do the two programs compare. As an editor, it's difficult to cram both those topics into one review.
I've used both products, but I don't iuse either for HTML or XML. I use products dedicated to Web authoring. Both products tout their Web capabilities. Personally, it leaves me cold (I know I should care but I don't).
The rest of the comparison I leave to personal preferences (and isn't that always the way it is?). I see merit in both. Currently I do have a preferred program, but I'm keeping my personal choice to myself. The site, however, tries to see both sides. I've had some folks tell me we're too pro-InDesign and others accuse us of being Quark apologists. Whatever. You need to evaluate the products on their own merits and what works for you.
So Quark people who feel comfortable -- and who appreciate its reliable printing should stick with Quark. Others will want to change for one reason or another, whether it's desire for new features or anger at Quark Inc.
To me the real issue -- and one that Sandee Cohen brought up in her review of InDesign -- is whether Quark users will want to upgrade at all. They could easily stick with 4.1 and be happy for some time to come.
Susan thinks it's a worthwhile upgrade for existing Quark users *who want to stick with the platform.* (Note the emphasis.)
We try to help with making the decision, but ultimately the choice is yours.
Thanks for reading,
Pamela Pfiffner, editor in chief
Does Quark 5 have multiple undos? I always thought that was the single biggest failing of the program (that and the fact that some things can't be undone at all).
Submitted by brettaylor on Wed, 03/13/2002 - 13:27.
to elicit the same type of response that Mac users expect from PC owners and vice versa. It's about time we opened our eyes and had a look at the alternative. I'm using InDesign and Quark, and although Quark is still a good app, the only reason I'm still with it is because everyone else is... Isn't that why Windows is the dominant platform, even though it's not the best?
Submitted by Ian Corcoran on Wed, 03/13/2002 - 23:39.
I've used Quark since 3.X, but there have always been things that were stupid about it, like only one undo and let's get real, the clipping is not always the best (in any version). I've completely gone over to ID2. ID 1.X did stink, but they've obviously listened to their customer complaints and put in a lot of nice features. People who think it is cluttered are people who probably don't use Adobe's other products. Those of us who do use Illustrator and Photoshop will find ID completely intuitive. The help file is good and the book is even better. Most things you can figure out. Some verbage is different, but that's expected. I find printing very easy and printing photo ready material is a snap. The fact that it cost $200 less, doesn't need the Xtensions that 4.X needs (which don't work with 5, so you'd have to upgrade all of those also), accepts clippings and transparancy on the fly, are really good reasons to switch. It even has a good spell checker. Biggest flaw with ID, it needs better gradient tools. Funny thing, Quark wanted to save money on printing their manual, so what did they choose....pdf. That's got to say something.
Submitted by RichSimmons on Thu, 03/14/2002 - 04:42.
I agree with everything in the review apart from the parting shot which recommends that all QXP users "rush out and get a copy". Sorry, but this is not a major upgrade. There are no killer features which aren't already available as XTensions to QXP 4.x users. Anyone with a keen interest in tables, Web output and layers will have bought a bunch of XTs already, and won't need this upgrade. Worse for British users, Quark's UK pricing structure puts QXP 5.0 at around 600 US dollars more expensive than InDesign 2.
$900 and no manual?
$900 for a CD and if you want the manual, that's another $50! If I start complaining about Hotline download speeds again, smack me.
OMG!!!
Quark has always been a greedy, self-centered company, but they've really gone out of their way to fleece their customers this time. Visit the Quark Web site and you will see that v.5 is $899 (OMG!) and if you want the two volume manual, they will charge $50 more. The manuals are .pdf only. They are actually charging $50 for a .pdf file. OMG!
It is about time they improved the collect for output feature. That should have been a free upgrade years ago. No more of my money will go to Quark.
They have terrible customer service, so if this very expensive program with no manual doesn't work, you will be on your own.
InDesign is a losing proposition as well. Maybe we should all go back to using PageMaker.
Beginning of the end for XPress
From reading this review, I'd have to say this is far from a must-have upgrade for XPress users. The list of new features is less than compelling and the most important new feature that should have been there is missing - XPress 5 is not OS X native. What is Quark smoking over there in Denver? It'll take a few years, but this is probably the turning point in the XPress/InDesign battle. Start saying good-bye to XPress.
Are you planning on printing your files?
The reviewer completely neglects the strongest aspect of Quark for many years. It has always been a program which will cause you very few problems when it comes to output. For anyone who has ever worked in pre-press, or if you would like your files to output correctly, Quark has always been the best bet. Don't even try to use a duotone in InDesign and the "useful" text tools will probably not print right either. Maybe I'm jaded...but maybe these programs should stop trying to add bells an whistles until they figure out how to make them output in the end usage.
Agreed
I have to jump in here as I feel like I've been in the middle of the ID vs QXP fray for some time now. There are a couple of issues: 1) how good is this version of QXP and 2) how do the two programs compare. As an editor, it's difficult to cram both those topics into one review.
I've used both products, but I don't iuse either for HTML or XML. I use products dedicated to Web authoring. Both products tout their Web capabilities. Personally, it leaves me cold (I know I should care but I don't).
The rest of the comparison I leave to personal preferences (and isn't that always the way it is?). I see merit in both. Currently I do have a preferred program, but I'm keeping my personal choice to myself. The site, however, tries to see both sides. I've had some folks tell me we're too pro-InDesign and others accuse us of being Quark apologists. Whatever. You need to evaluate the products on their own merits and what works for you.
So Quark people who feel comfortable -- and who appreciate its reliable printing should stick with Quark. Others will want to change for one reason or another, whether it's desire for new features or anger at Quark Inc.
To me the real issue -- and one that Sandee Cohen brought up in her review of InDesign -- is whether Quark users will want to upgrade at all. They could easily stick with 4.1 and be happy for some time to come.
Susan thinks it's a worthwhile upgrade for existing Quark users *who want to stick with the platform.* (Note the emphasis.)
We try to help with making the decision, but ultimately the choice is yours.
Thanks for reading,
Pamela Pfiffner, editor in chief
Multiple undos?
Does Quark 5 have multiple undos? I always thought that was the single biggest failing of the program (that and the fact that some things can't be undone at all).
Quark users - get over it!
to elicit the same type of response that Mac users expect from PC owners and vice versa. It's about time we opened our eyes and had a look at the alternative. I'm using InDesign and Quark, and although Quark is still a good app, the only reason I'm still with it is because everyone else is... Isn't that why Windows is the dominant platform, even though it's not the best?
QXP 5 vs ID 2
I've used Quark since 3.X, but there have always been things that were stupid about it, like only one undo and let's get real, the clipping is not always the best (in any version). I've completely gone over to ID2. ID 1.X did stink, but they've obviously listened to their customer complaints and put in a lot of nice features. People who think it is cluttered are people who probably don't use Adobe's other products. Those of us who do use Illustrator and Photoshop will find ID completely intuitive. The help file is good and the book is even better. Most things you can figure out. Some verbage is different, but that's expected. I find printing very easy and printing photo ready material is a snap. The fact that it cost $200 less, doesn't need the Xtensions that 4.X needs (which don't work with 5, so you'd have to upgrade all of those also), accepts clippings and transparancy on the fly, are really good reasons to switch. It even has a good spell checker. Biggest flaw with ID, it needs better gradient tools. Funny thing, Quark wanted to save money on printing their manual, so what did they choose....pdf. That's got to say something.
A major upgrade? From what?
I agree with everything in the review apart from the parting shot which recommends that all QXP users "rush out and get a copy". Sorry, but this is not a major upgrade. There are no killer features which aren't already available as XTensions to QXP 4.x users. Anyone with a keen interest in tables, Web output and layers will have bought a bunch of XTs already, and won't need this upgrade. Worse for British users, Quark's UK pricing structure puts QXP 5.0 at around 600 US dollars more expensive than InDesign 2.