Quark handles AppleScript so easily. And there are tons of Xtensions to do just about anything. As long as Quark goes OS X native, I'm sticking with it (Quark 4.11 already does well in Classic!)
The last thing we need is stagnant companies is the software business. For the purchase price of $799 Quark should be doing much more to develop great creative features to make it head and shoulders above InDesign. I don't think the features are there.
Submitted by nickartzy0 on Tue, 01/22/2002 - 12:40.
I'm really disappointed with the way in which Adobe is handling the situation with this segment of the market. Why is Adobe so persistent in crushing Quark? If Quark has so much of the market in page layout only, let them have it. For god's sake, you have Photoshop and Illustrator. It's not easy to put together an application that can meet an industry's standards so adequately. Yes, it's got bugs but (to give credit to Quark), it's worked at ironing them out. It creates PDFs beautifully through Distiller. Why would anyone jeopardize print deadlines to skip a step that will take them one minute (max.) to do? I haven't had any problems sending things to offset. Ironically, Adobe's InDesign and (I'm seeing a therapist about this) PageMaker make you re-learn something you already know how to do in your sleep in Quark (writing PDFs)?
I'm disappointed that Adobe is acting in such a monopolistic proprietary manner about this. They've had their chance with PageMaker. Stop wasting resources and invest in new markets or make your products even better. Let Quark be good at what they're good at. Why re-invent the wheel when the wheel works? .
I have always been a big fan of Adobe with the exception of Pagemaker. Pagemaker was slow, unorganized, and a complete nightmare - files were always getting corrupted, linked elements were always screwed up somehow. I only used Pagemaker for projects that would be going to be used by a non-professional (such as newsletter templates to hand over to an organization) Quark was always my first choice. And I really don't think that the way Adobe has shown such "wonderful new features" in Illustrator 9.0 that print oriented designers are going to put up with their messes. I have always trusted Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop upgrades to be pretty bug free and I have never had a problem with them until this latest batch. While Photoshop has been fine, Illustrator is a nightmare, and I don't use it much and a lot of times I use it for Web design and still find their new web features terrible...I can 't believe Illustrators are happy! I think integration of products is what's going to hurt Adobe - I personally like to have specialized programs They always work better- LONG LIVE QUARK please:0)
Submitted by bponticello on Tue, 11/14/2000 - 19:20.
In reading the article on the battle between Adobe InDesign and QuarkXpress I have to say that I am quite disappointed, somebody has missed the mark. Funny how we, as humans, seem to thrive on creating wars to establish our position on things. Adobe Illustrator is a strong Vector Tool while PhotoShop is a fantastic photo image tool and is even strong for other applications but I would have to say that Quark is my choice for page layout. And to say that the Web is the deciding factor is bunk! The web cannot display a roadside billboard nor can it display a full-fledged magazine. I say, use the tool that you are comfortable with and stop worrying about the competition. No company should try to do everything, we all like BMWs but I certainly wouldn't use one to plow a corn field. Don't get me wrong, I love Adobe products but I also love Quark. If one application is strong for the web and the other is strong for print--Cudos! So, in summary, use what is appropriate to the task at hand.
Submitted by BTomassetti on Thu, 09/07/2000 - 05:15.
I'm sorry but I'm stickin with InDesign. Since first installation over a year ago I've converted all Old Quark files to InDesign and ditched both Quark 3.32 and 4. My film house is only too happy to receive InDesign files as they rip smoother with no hassles. I just may buy shares in Adobe if'n they drop some!
thanx... Gary @ G4CE
Submitted by Gary A. Gatti on Thu, 09/07/2000 - 05:21.
I completely disagree with Anitas view on In-Design. My guess is that she has many shares of Adobe stock and is just wishing that In-Design will prevail. We tried Adobe Framemaker+SGML and wasted over $2,000 just for software plus the training. The In-Design demo we received was enough warning not to attempt any more changes. We agree that Quark does not have the best support but that is an industry standard when your product rules.
It's just me and my wife as freelancers in Clearwater, FL. We love Macs and Adobe software. Though we've used Quark for years, we welcomed inDesign when it arrived--especially when 1.5 arrived.
Sure, it's not as finished a product as XPress. But they had to start somewhere. Some say we paid to be beta testers for 1.0. But I can see the need for them to let it out of the barn at some point.
I think inDesign has many refreshing features. Though I haven't extensively tested the implications and effects later on the production line, I think that it's an elegant idea to be able to place native format PS and AI files, as well as PDF files on ID pages. I like the palette for placed images.
I also like the pdf export feature with a built-in distiller. It's convenient.
Sure there are bugs. But give em a break. I'm sure they're listening to feedback and working on fixes and upgrades.
I think PDF has a long healthy life ahead, as does XML. You should note that Adobe's new graphic format SVG is XML based. So I'm sure Adobe is aware of its advantages. What's wrong with waiting to see what the competition does and then bettering it?
Software development is a two way thing. We have to realize that we users are listened to and also be willing to take chances, too, by trying out new products.
Working for a publishing company, we have most of what we need in Quark. With our layouts varying from 80 pages to 400 pages it is very important for us to have long document capabilities.
We do export to .pdf for some of our printers, and we use postscript output for our Quark files. But, quite simply, Quark is too stable for us to give up, especially with two magazines going out monthly.
With our need to export the magazines to our website we foresee that Quark, especially with the news about 5.0 and XML, will remain our most valuable publishing program.
Submitted by kidkwattro on Thu, 08/24/2000 - 11:45.
we have just started using indesign (1 copy vs. 8 qxp). i can't recommend it. it does a lousy job of creating pdfs. the pdfs that is does create cannot be output through acrobat(crackerjack) if there is color in the pdf. it could not print a placed illustrator file. when i tried printing direct from illustrator it ran fine. too many problems for me to encourage anyone to use this program
I use Pagemaker then indesign and try quark for a while. Indesign is a better by far it does more and it does it better. Adobe has Photoshop and Illustrator. to back it up it will just get better quark does have chance in the long run.
InDesign should had been « the best » at first time...
Like Photoshop...
I just feel that Adobe didn't take seriously enough the fact that
graphic designers really need a sotfware they can rely on strongly. No time for errors and excuses.
It's kind of deceiving, because, I think, a lot of persons were ready, at that time, to make the move.
The most deceiving at all, is that Quark, on his side, seems to be sleeping and, like usual, act like a king who thinks everything is winned in advance. For me and a lot of designers I'm in contact with, it's typically a relation of « love and hate » !
May be the answer will come from outer space !
Let's admit that there's no real big surprise around...
Hopefully, for consumers, the battle between Quark and Adobe will continue. The competition will only make each of their respective applications better.
As a Quark user for several years, I will probably stay with Quark -- even as InDesign progresses towards the mature, feature-rich program that everyone hopes it will be.
Although Quark has adopted the XML -- the more technical, programmer-friendly -- approach to the web, it will be a good way for designers to hand-off their content to programmers for web publishing.
I also don't see PDF as being a negative for Quark -- I use my "Export to PDF" extension all the time for my Quark files, with great results. It has saved me a great deal of time getting things through the review process.
The best thing that could happen for a Quark user like myself, is that InDesign keeps getting better -- that will keep Quark on its toes.
Plug ins and AppleScript make me go with Quark
Quark handles AppleScript so easily. And there are tons of Xtensions to do just about anything. As long as Quark goes OS X native, I'm sticking with it (Quark 4.11 already does well in Classic!)
This industry needs strong competition to stay at the forward ed
The last thing we need is stagnant companies is the software business. For the purchase price of $799 Quark should be doing much more to develop great creative features to make it head and shoulders above InDesign. I don't think the features are there.
Adobe will buy Quark
Wouldn't be surprised to see Adobe buy Quark one day soon. Remember Adobe and Aldus?
Has Bill Gates taken over Adobe?
I'm really disappointed with the way in which Adobe is handling the situation with this segment of the market. Why is Adobe so persistent in crushing Quark? If Quark has so much of the market in page layout only, let them have it. For god's sake, you have Photoshop and Illustrator. It's not easy to put together an application that can meet an industry's standards so adequately. Yes, it's got bugs but (to give credit to Quark), it's worked at ironing them out. It creates PDFs beautifully through Distiller. Why would anyone jeopardize print deadlines to skip a step that will take them one minute (max.) to do? I haven't had any problems sending things to offset. Ironically, Adobe's InDesign and (I'm seeing a therapist about this) PageMaker make you re-learn something you already know how to do in your sleep in Quark (writing PDFs)?
I'm disappointed that Adobe is acting in such a monopolistic proprietary manner about this. They've had their chance with PageMaker. Stop wasting resources and invest in new markets or make your products even better. Let Quark be good at what they're good at. Why re-invent the wheel when the wheel works? .
The way Adobes going I won't buy another product...
I have always been a big fan of Adobe with the exception of Pagemaker. Pagemaker was slow, unorganized, and a complete nightmare - files were always getting corrupted, linked elements were always screwed up somehow. I only used Pagemaker for projects that would be going to be used by a non-professional (such as newsletter templates to hand over to an organization) Quark was always my first choice. And I really don't think that the way Adobe has shown such "wonderful new features" in Illustrator 9.0 that print oriented designers are going to put up with their messes. I have always trusted Adobe Illustrator and Photoshop upgrades to be pretty bug free and I have never had a problem with them until this latest batch. While Photoshop has been fine, Illustrator is a nightmare, and I don't use it much and a lot of times I use it for Web design and still find their new web features terrible...I can 't believe Illustrators are happy! I think integration of products is what's going to hurt Adobe - I personally like to have specialized programs They always work better- LONG LIVE QUARK please:0)
Use what is appropriate and stop creating wars!
In reading the article on the battle between Adobe InDesign and QuarkXpress I have to say that I am quite disappointed, somebody has missed the mark. Funny how we, as humans, seem to thrive on creating wars to establish our position on things. Adobe Illustrator is a strong Vector Tool while PhotoShop is a fantastic photo image tool and is even strong for other applications but I would have to say that Quark is my choice for page layout. And to say that the Web is the deciding factor is bunk! The web cannot display a roadside billboard nor can it display a full-fledged magazine. I say, use the tool that you are comfortable with and stop worrying about the competition. No company should try to do everything, we all like BMWs but I certainly wouldn't use one to plow a corn field. Don't get me wrong, I love Adobe products but I also love Quark. If one application is strong for the web and the other is strong for print--Cudos! So, in summary, use what is appropriate to the task at hand.
I buried Quark out back!
I'm sorry but I'm stickin with InDesign. Since first installation over a year ago I've converted all Old Quark files to InDesign and ditched both Quark 3.32 and 4. My film house is only too happy to receive InDesign files as they rip smoother with no hassles. I just may buy shares in Adobe if'n they drop some!
thanx... Gary @ G4CE
Quark vs. In-Design
I completely disagree with Anitas view on In-Design. My guess is that she has many shares of Adobe stock and is just wishing that In-Design will prevail. We tried Adobe Framemaker+SGML and wasted over $2,000 just for software plus the training. The In-Design demo we received was enough warning not to attempt any more changes. We agree that Quark does not have the best support but that is an industry standard when your product rules.
I wouldn't be too hasty in judging Adobe
It's just me and my wife as freelancers in Clearwater, FL. We love Macs and Adobe software. Though we've used Quark for years, we welcomed inDesign when it arrived--especially when 1.5 arrived.
Sure, it's not as finished a product as XPress. But they had to start somewhere. Some say we paid to be beta testers for 1.0. But I can see the need for them to let it out of the barn at some point.
I think inDesign has many refreshing features. Though I haven't extensively tested the implications and effects later on the production line, I think that it's an elegant idea to be able to place native format PS and AI files, as well as PDF files on ID pages. I like the palette for placed images.
I also like the pdf export feature with a built-in distiller. It's convenient.
Sure there are bugs. But give em a break. I'm sure they're listening to feedback and working on fixes and upgrades.
I think PDF has a long healthy life ahead, as does XML. You should note that Adobe's new graphic format SVG is XML based. So I'm sure Adobe is aware of its advantages. What's wrong with waiting to see what the competition does and then bettering it?
Software development is a two way thing. We have to realize that we users are listened to and also be willing to take chances, too, by trying out new products.
Quark should continue to lead publishing.
Working for a publishing company, we have most of what we need in Quark. With our layouts varying from 80 pages to 400 pages it is very important for us to have long document capabilities.
We do export to .pdf for some of our printers, and we use postscript output for our Quark files. But, quite simply, Quark is too stable for us to give up, especially with two magazines going out monthly.
With our need to export the magazines to our website we foresee that Quark, especially with the news about 5.0 and XML, will remain our most valuable publishing program.
quark is far superior
we have just started using indesign (1 copy vs. 8 qxp). i can't recommend it. it does a lousy job of creating pdfs. the pdfs that is does create cannot be output through acrobat(crackerjack) if there is color in the pdf. it could not print a placed illustrator file. when i tried printing direct from illustrator it ran fine. too many problems for me to encourage anyone to use this program
It's hard to teach old dogs new tricks
I use Pagemaker then indesign and try quark for a while. Indesign is a better by far it does more and it does it better. Adobe has Photoshop and Illustrator. to back it up it will just get better quark does have chance in the long run.
Adobe can win the war but not every battle
InDesign should had been « the best » at first time...
Like Photoshop...
I just feel that Adobe didn't take seriously enough the fact that
graphic designers really need a sotfware they can rely on strongly. No time for errors and excuses.
It's kind of deceiving, because, I think, a lot of persons were ready, at that time, to make the move.
The most deceiving at all, is that Quark, on his side, seems to be sleeping and, like usual, act like a king who thinks everything is winned in advance. For me and a lot of designers I'm in contact with, it's typically a relation of « love and hate » !
May be the answer will come from outer space !
Let's admit that there's no real big surprise around...
Hopefully the Battle Will Continue
Hopefully, for consumers, the battle between Quark and Adobe will continue. The competition will only make each of their respective applications better.
As a Quark user for several years, I will probably stay with Quark -- even as InDesign progresses towards the mature, feature-rich program that everyone hopes it will be.
Although Quark has adopted the XML -- the more technical, programmer-friendly -- approach to the web, it will be a good way for designers to hand-off their content to programmers for web publishing.
I also don't see PDF as being a negative for Quark -- I use my "Export to PDF" extension all the time for my Quark files, with great results. It has saved me a great deal of time getting things through the review process.
The best thing that could happen for a Quark user like myself, is that InDesign keeps getting better -- that will keep Quark on its toes.