My principle dislike of Quark stems not only from the lack of service, but from the way the company treats educational institutions. When version 5.0 was introduced, supposedly it was compatable with Mac OS 10. In reality, it worked, unstable at best, in classic mode and with an abundance of font problems. When 6.0 was introduced, did Quark offer educators a reasonable upgrade? No such luck. As a growing number of commercial printers turn to InDesign, so will educators. At some point, we'll all teach InDesign–the designer's layout program of choice.
Submitted by Jim Markle on Tue, 04/13/2004 - 15:09.
Quark is more than a little late to wake up. I made the switch to Adobe Indesign a long time ago and have never wanted to look back to Quark. Quark has been far too expensive. InDesign is much better with Adobe's Creative Suite and using a PDF workflow for print (it cannot be beat). It was good for a few years Quark but I must say goodbye in favor of the superior InDesign CS.
Quark still seems to be out of touch with its main user base. By going after the big (most profitable segment) and devoting 80% of it's resources to that end, it seems they are OK with just chasing after the big fish and letting Adobe start to erode its overall marketshare. I was waiting to see how Quark 6 and InDesign CS stacked up, and clearly InDesign is a better product. Since the overwhelming majority of users don't want the Enterprise component or can't afford to implement it, Quark's new offerings will fall on deaf ears.
As a long-time user of Quark Xpress, I was always vaguely aware that they had an enterprise class publishing system, but I never had the need to investigate it, as I worked for small to mid-size printers. After having read this article I'm impressed with the amount of stuff that they produce.
In 13 years of use, I've always had a pretty good experience with Xpress in particular. We were usually on the service plan, so there were no real issues with customer service. There were occasions like the release of vers. 4 that were troublesome, but they made that a stable piece of software with revisions. Just like any other software company.
I started with Xpress with vers. 2 and InDesign at vers. 1.5. Both have come a long way in their time, esp. InDesign. But for most work, I still rely on Xpress, mostly because I know it so much better.
But like the author said at the end of the article, Quark is so much more than Xpress. Thanks for the view into the product line.
Submitted by geozinger on Tue, 04/06/2004 - 05:36.
Yes, Quark has more of a workflow suite than Adobe does. But much of what is shown in this article is vaporware. Maintenance is outrageous, with no updates for QPS users in the 18 months + since Quark took over the product again, no sign of any soon, and no one who can support QPS. Activation is brain dead, breaking with software updates, plugging in hardware, etc. The download link for the 6.1 updater on their site gives a 404 error. And there are still no user forums, ultimate proof that they have no confidence to face their customers. So far there is a lot of hot air and no meaningful change I see, and the QPS users we support will move to an InDesign-based solution before upgrading barring MAJOR changes.
Submitted by PrintHead on Tue, 04/06/2004 - 09:17.
The article is a large, detailed announcement favouring Quark products and goodwills. Full of promises users already heard in past years about better support and improved products.
About QXP, one more time Quark points to the wrong direction. To fully support XML is not a choose, it's a need. If the great new that version 7.0 will bring is all about multi-channel and XML support, QXP will remain inferior to InDesign.
Average users needs improved typographical tools, better way to manage tables, footnotes, page imposing and colours, reliable print and PDF-output – and would be nice not to need a dozen plug-ins to get the "workflow" to work and flow. If QXP 7 will still lack on these points, even a great XML support will fail as a whole strategy.
And, of course, how to believe in such promises if Quark site still does not works as expected and does not offer even an user forum?
After waiting far to long for Quark to put a true OSX version on the street, I am still skeptical after reading this. And just how much will Quark 7 cost. Will it be competative with InDesign. In higher education we are only interested in teaching the concepts of design, etc, and not how to use a specific tool. We can teach concepts and design principles with InDesign just as well as we can with Quark, and at about one third the price even with educational discounts. I know from experience that once students leave and enter the workplace they tend to ask for or use the tools they learned with. I did not see anything in the article about support for education. Perhaps Quark should put some effort into that area to help maintain their market share.
At least the article indicates "Editor's note: The author consults with Quark, among other clients." How can we trust the objectivity of a person writing about a company that signs his paycheck? Everything in the article might be true but unless it's written by someone not on the Quark payroll, I'll be taking it with a grain of salt the size of Alaska. What's next? The virtues of AdobeCS by CEO Bruce Chizen?
Submitted by johnsvatek on Mon, 04/12/2004 - 10:11.
Pamela Pfiffner said;
"What it comes down to is this: Quark has such a horrible reputation that no one wants to give it the benefit of the doubt." -end snip
Like many, I put up with the mistreatment Quark dished out because I liked and needed their product to earn my living. When I made the transition to OSX - and was left Xpress-less, I discovered that I was not as dependant on their software as I had come to believe.
Quark, as a company, has become a pariah to many of us who formerly used Xpress, and who no longer use it because we don't have to.
I suppose it is possible Quark could win me back as a customer - but not as long as I don't "have" to.
Submitted by Ernie Simpson on Tue, 04/13/2004 - 06:10.
Pamela stated "What it comes down to is this: Quark has such a horrible reputation that no one wants to give it the benefit of the doubt. I won't say that reputation is unearned. The company knows it needs to change its attitude. The real question is, Will the publishing community acknowledge any change? Or does it even care?"
I can acknowledge that Quark supeficially realizes that it needs to change. But the REAL question is does Quark even care? More to the point are they capable of changing?
Quark is going to need to do a WHOLE lot of bending over backwards to change their awful reputation before I'll be willing to believe they are sincere and not motivated by one thing...maximizing profit.
Submitted by Steve Wolock on Tue, 04/13/2004 - 09:07.
Quark versus education
My principle dislike of Quark stems not only from the lack of service, but from the way the company treats educational institutions. When version 5.0 was introduced, supposedly it was compatable with Mac OS 10. In reality, it worked, unstable at best, in classic mode and with an abundance of font problems. When 6.0 was introduced, did Quark offer educators a reasonable upgrade? No such luck. As a growing number of commercial printers turn to InDesign, so will educators. At some point, we'll all teach InDesign–the designer's layout program of choice.
A little late
Quark is more than a little late to wake up. I made the switch to Adobe Indesign a long time ago and have never wanted to look back to Quark. Quark has been far too expensive. InDesign is much better with Adobe's Creative Suite and using a PDF workflow for print (it cannot be beat). It was good for a few years Quark but I must say goodbye in favor of the superior InDesign CS.
Not enough reasons for the average user
Quark still seems to be out of touch with its main user base. By going after the big (most profitable segment) and devoting 80% of it's resources to that end, it seems they are OK with just chasing after the big fish and letting Adobe start to erode its overall marketshare. I was waiting to see how Quark 6 and InDesign CS stacked up, and clearly InDesign is a better product. Since the overwhelming majority of users don't want the Enterprise component or can't afford to implement it, Quark's new offerings will fall on deaf ears.
More to Quark than just Xpress
As a long-time user of Quark Xpress, I was always vaguely aware that they had an enterprise class publishing system, but I never had the need to investigate it, as I worked for small to mid-size printers. After having read this article I'm impressed with the amount of stuff that they produce.
In 13 years of use, I've always had a pretty good experience with Xpress in particular. We were usually on the service plan, so there were no real issues with customer service. There were occasions like the release of vers. 4 that were troublesome, but they made that a stable piece of software with revisions. Just like any other software company.
I started with Xpress with vers. 2 and InDesign at vers. 1.5. Both have come a long way in their time, esp. InDesign. But for most work, I still rely on Xpress, mostly because I know it so much better.
But like the author said at the end of the article, Quark is so much more than Xpress. Thanks for the view into the product line.
Lots yet to be proven
Yes, Quark has more of a workflow suite than Adobe does. But much of what is shown in this article is vaporware. Maintenance is outrageous, with no updates for QPS users in the 18 months + since Quark took over the product again, no sign of any soon, and no one who can support QPS. Activation is brain dead, breaking with software updates, plugging in hardware, etc. The download link for the 6.1 updater on their site gives a 404 error. And there are still no user forums, ultimate proof that they have no confidence to face their customers. So far there is a lot of hot air and no meaningful change I see, and the QPS users we support will move to an InDesign-based solution before upgrading barring MAJOR changes.
What is this? A huge Quark announce?
The article is a large, detailed announcement favouring Quark products and goodwills. Full of promises users already heard in past years about better support and improved products.
About QXP, one more time Quark points to the wrong direction. To fully support XML is not a choose, it's a need. If the great new that version 7.0 will bring is all about multi-channel and XML support, QXP will remain inferior to InDesign.
Average users needs improved typographical tools, better way to manage tables, footnotes, page imposing and colours, reliable print and PDF-output – and would be nice not to need a dozen plug-ins to get the "workflow" to work and flow. If QXP 7 will still lack on these points, even a great XML support will fail as a whole strategy.
And, of course, how to believe in such promises if Quark site still does not works as expected and does not offer even an user forum?
I'm still skeptical
After waiting far to long for Quark to put a true OSX version on the street, I am still skeptical after reading this. And just how much will Quark 7 cost. Will it be competative with InDesign. In higher education we are only interested in teaching the concepts of design, etc, and not how to use a specific tool. We can teach concepts and design principles with InDesign just as well as we can with Quark, and at about one third the price even with educational discounts. I know from experience that once students leave and enter the workplace they tend to ask for or use the tools they learned with. I did not see anything in the article about support for education. Perhaps Quark should put some effort into that area to help maintain their market share.
This isn't a news feature, it's a press release
At least the article indicates "Editor's note: The author consults with Quark, among other clients." How can we trust the objectivity of a person writing about a company that signs his paycheck? Everything in the article might be true but unless it's written by someone not on the Quark payroll, I'll be taking it with a grain of salt the size of Alaska. What's next? The virtues of AdobeCS by CEO Bruce Chizen?
Quark is a pariah
Pamela Pfiffner said;
"What it comes down to is this: Quark has such a horrible reputation that no one wants to give it the benefit of the doubt." -end snip
Like many, I put up with the mistreatment Quark dished out because I liked and needed their product to earn my living. When I made the transition to OSX - and was left Xpress-less, I discovered that I was not as dependant on their software as I had come to believe.
Quark, as a company, has become a pariah to many of us who formerly used Xpress, and who no longer use it because we don't have to.
I suppose it is possible Quark could win me back as a customer - but not as long as I don't "have" to.
Quark's Credibility Gap
Pamela stated "What it comes down to is this: Quark has such a horrible reputation that no one wants to give it the benefit of the doubt. I won't say that reputation is unearned. The company knows it needs to change its attitude. The real question is, Will the publishing community acknowledge any change? Or does it even care?"
I can acknowledge that Quark supeficially realizes that it needs to change. But the REAL question is does Quark even care? More to the point are they capable of changing?
Quark is going to need to do a WHOLE lot of bending over backwards to change their awful reputation before I'll be willing to believe they are sincere and not motivated by one thing...maximizing profit.