Adobe is barred from distributing Indesign

sinewavesinewave
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000100396dec19.story?coll=la-headlines-busines s" target="_blank">http://www.latimes.com/business/la-000100396dec19.story?coll=la-headlines-busines s</a>



IN 1.5, not a big deal as 2.0 is soon out.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 28
    philip studies physics.philip studies physics. Posts: 15member
    Ehh, our legal system moves so slowly that indesign will be optimized for the G8 before Adobe runs out of appeals options.



    Case-in-point: Sun vs. Microsoft over Java implementation



    VERDICT: Microsoft broke contract with Sun



    Real World Results: All Java is now Microsoft based
  • Reply 2 of 28
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    Big Whoop... The only reason I'd switch from Quark is if iD 2.0 did all that Quark did and more... other than that... Quark is my man.



    Mac Guru
  • Reply 3 of 28
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    Quark needs buried. Badly.
  • Reply 4 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    Quark is fine, I don't know why people dog it so much (especially people who don't use it). Is it just an Adobe love-fest thing?



    I hadn't heard about Adobe stealing someone else's software for InDesign. Lame.
  • Reply 5 of 28
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>Quark is fine, I don't know why people dog it so much (especially people who don't use it). Is it just an Adobe love-fest thing?<hr></blockquote></strong>

    I've used it for year for paginating classified and making ads. It's a POS. The only reason it's still around is all the rest of the DTP and layout apps out there are even bigger POS. Indesign 2.0 if far better than Quark, Indesign 1.2 blew

    [quote]<strong>

    I hadn't heard about Adobe stealing someone else's software for InDesign. Lame.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    No they used some code out of another piece of software in version 1.5

    Version 2.0 wont have this. It's the very same thing MS did with Apple.
  • Reply 6 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]It's the very same thing MS did with Apple.<hr></blockquote>



    I was waiting for that. haha



    God, you need help.



    You sound like a goddam Aggie bitching about the Longhorns all the time.
  • Reply 7 of 28
    sinewavesinewave Posts: 1,074member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>



    I was waiting for that. haha



    God, you need help.



    You sound like a goddam Aggie bitching about the Longhorns all the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I was just pointing out similar things that happened in the past. You know.. that is the normal thing to do when arguing such things. I didn't mean to trample on your MS ideology.



    [ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Sinewave ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 28
    logan calelogan cale Posts: 1,281member
    Quark is ugly, slow, and obsolete. InDesign 1.0 showed potential to beat Quark, 1.5 was slow, but usable, and 2.0 will be way better. Once printers and such switch, Quark will be dead.
  • Reply 9 of 28
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    Quark may be all of the above but it's still the industry Standard... If InDesign 2.0 can do ALL that Quark can and then some, I'll switch (and I do mean having files that can be opened from Quark for my Printers sake) THEN and only then will I move from Quark.



    Mac Guru

    Gig 'em
  • Reply 10 of 28
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    P.S.- I don't remember any rule stating that a program had to be nice to look at... look at Dreamweaver... the UI might suck but it's one of the best.



    Mac Guru

    Gig 'em
  • Reply 11 of 28
    the rootwitchthe rootwitch Posts: 67member
    Just because Quark is the industry standard doesn't mean another product isn't better. More people use PCs than Macs, yet Macs are better.



    Quark works and I have to use it, but I hope InDesign 2 is better so I can switch.
  • Reply 12 of 28
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    [quote]Originally posted by groverat:

    <strong>

    God, you need help.



    You sound like a goddam Aggie bitching about the Longhorns all the time.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Find a new analogy would ya? Seems like every time you don't like something someone else says, you call them down on it and then call them a gomer or an aggie. There is a world outside of Texas collegiate football...and frankly, no one outside of Texas cares about the in-state rivalries there.



    But [regarding college football I will say this]: The Rose Bowl is a no-win situation. Can't think of two teams who deserve verbal abuse more than Miami and Nebraska. GUHhh. Bastards. You know something is wrong with the universe when there is neither a Big Ten nor a Pac Ten team in the Rose Bowl....





    By the way, Quark is a POS, and I have used it, and decided immediately thereafter I didn't want to do that anymore. Even an incomplete ID 1.5 is a better product IMO (at least with small documents).



    [ 12-20-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    [quote]There is a world outside of Texas collegiate football...and frankly, no one outside of Texas cares about the in-state rivalries there.<hr></blockquote>



    Actually, there isn't a world outside of Texas collegiate football.



    I apologize for injuring your delicate sensibilities. Would it be better for me to use a Washington Generals/Harlem Globetrotters analogy? How about an North Carolina/Duke analogy?



    Sounds like you're protesting too much, got an obsession with NCAA football yourself?



    The Pac-10 does not deserve a Rose Bowl shot, they were weak this year. Nebraska is the best 1-loss team.



    --



    Once again, I'm the odd-man out, but I kind of like Quark. Of course, I've only used it on Dual800 G4s and equivalent PCs so I didn't notice much performance nastiness. I've used InDesign 1.2 and it wasn't enough, 1.5 might be better but I've never used it. Here's hoping 2.0 is far better than Quark. And then here's hoping that the next Quark blows ID2.0 out of the water, and so on and so forth.
  • Reply 14 of 28
    gigawiregigawire Posts: 196member
    How about no sports references on a computer message board?
  • Reply 15 of 28
    the rootwitchthe rootwitch Posts: 67member
    [quote]Originally posted by Gigawire:

    <strong>How about no sports references on a computer message board?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Excellent suggestion.
  • Reply 16 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    I'm anti-anti-sports people.
  • Reply 17 of 28
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    they settled



    <a href="http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200112/20011220triosettles.html"; target="_blank">http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200112/20011220triosettles.html</a>;
  • Reply 18 of 28
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    I hate football myself... the only time I watch it is when my family watches during Thanks Giving.



    I got three words for ya







    Mac Guru
  • Reply 19 of 28
    groveratgroverat Posts: 10,872member
    You're a naughty person for advocating cruelty to animals!
  • Reply 20 of 28
    mac gurumac guru Posts: 367member
    Only BEVO man.



    Mac Guru
Sign In or Register to comment.