Quark X-Press

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
Quark is still not native on OS X? Does anyone understand this. I'm sure people have kibbutzed about this before but I can't understand it!



s.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 59
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    There's nothing to explain -- Quark still isn't OSX native. Many of their devoted users are pissed about it, and many (like me) have purchased InDesign and are glad there's finally a modern, X-friendly page layout app so they can stop using Qark Xpress.
  • Reply 2 of 59
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    All the good workflow apps are being made for ID anyway. It's only a matter of time till QXP dies. Good riddance.
  • Reply 3 of 59
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    I have switched to Indy and it's really galaxies away from XPress.

    XPress is dead but Quark doesn't know it.
  • Reply 4 of 59
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    I have switched to Indy and it's really galaxies away from XPress.

    XPress is dead but Quark doesn't know it.
  • Reply 5 of 59
    i've heard rumors that quark didnt start trying to port to OSX until recently. And with all of the very very old code and the fact that they are moving their physical locations around, you shouldn't expect Quark native in OSX until late of 2003, more likely early-mid 2004.



    just a rumor i heard, probably not true, but it does seem likely considering quark's past track record.
  • Reply 6 of 59
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    By 2004, if there isn't already an OSX version of Quark, a huge percentage of their users will have switched to InDesign. I've owned InDesign 2 for all of one day, and I already wonder why I would ever switch back to Quark. The difference is huge!
  • Reply 7 of 59
    pevepeve Posts: 518member
    quark has mis-treated us for far to long.



    with indesign the page-layout-world has finaly got a modern app.



    quark just used the installed bases to make money out of the fact that there wasn't a alternative.



    but its just like windows, ya know.

    people who use it know its crap, but:

    -"i'm used to it"

    -"i don't want to learn something new"

    -"it works for me"

    -"it isn't that bad"



    fact is: it's stoneage technologie, far to expensive, dongle protected (europe), crap to work with and updates are to expensive and basicly bugfixes with limited new features.
  • Reply 8 of 59
    I feel that Quark thought the other companies were going to drag their feet on releasing OS X versions too...so they backed off...blinked is more like it. And they'll be paying the consequences for a long time.



    Some printing people I know still haven't switched to OS X, but many are now because Adobe has come through with Photoshop, InDesign and GoLive for OS X. The ones that have switched find it a pain to go back to OS 9/Classic just to view or work on Xpress files...and they are seriously considering switching to InDesign...good for them!



    Quark has gotten a rep similar to Microsoft now. The "sheep" are waking up though.
  • Reply 9 of 59
    I must be the only person that doesn't like Indesign. I like Quark, it's simple, it gets the job done. Indesign feels like a modified Illustrator to me. Saying that, Quark had better shift their backside or I'll be forced to use Indesign.
  • Reply 10 of 59
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    Biggest, and most immediately obvious deficiency of Quark after spending a few hours with InDesign: the quality of the onscreen display of both text and graphics, especially when working with CMYK images.



    I design CD packages with fairly small text inside the booklet, and even if I zoom in as far as possible in Quark, I still can't read the booklet text on my 21" monitor! I have to copy & paste the text into BBEdit to proof it for errors. With InDesign you can zoom in as far as you want (within reason), and the graphics & text display at a quality much more closely approximating what you'll actually see in print.
  • Reply 11 of 59
    jccbinjccbin Posts: 476member
    Xpress deserves to die a painful death.



    InDesign will do quite well over the next few years.



    :-)
  • Reply 12 of 59
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Quark Xpress is still here?!



    I thought it has been dead a long time ago



    Guys...please. Don't ever mention OS 9 and Xpress again. I am going to have heart attack :eek:



    [ 06-26-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 59
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    I'm with you guys. With the release of InDesign 2, I feel that the program really came of age and is only going to improve as time goes on.



    It simply feels smarter and more modern than Quark. Gee, good reason.



    And, being that I spend all my time in OTHER Adobe apps, the learning curve and overall feeling of familiarity is just there already. I like that.



    Add to all that the fact that Quark is simply a butthole company. I've been on the phone with them for one reason or another on about seven different occasions over the span of six years. And EVERY TIME was like pulling teeth. The person on the phone was an unmitigated prick on wheels to the tenth power...ugh!



    Add to THAT, the fact that they completely bend you over in regards to upgrades, pricing, etc. The place I used to work at, it would've cost THOUSANDS to upgrade to the new Quark. No discounts, crossgrades, multi-user deals, etc.



    Adobe is so much cooler and more generous when it comes to that aspect of things: competitive upgrades, crossgrades, reasonable fees, etc.



    Quark just seems to suck you dry. And not in the good kind of way.



  • Reply 14 of 59
    hirhir Posts: 66member
    I've strating using InDesign and it already has me convinced. I haven't tried to send InDesign files to have film ripped yet, but this shouldn't matter. I work at a major Publisher, and we've already started sending PDFs tp Printers then going computer to plate anyway. My point is, the application no longer matters as long as you can provide vendors with press-ready PDFs.



    InDesign kicks ass on page-rendering. No more lo-res on screep EPSes or TIFFs. The drop shadow feature and support for photoshop channels and transparency makes switching from QXP to ID2 a no-brainer for OSX users in my opinion.
  • Reply 15 of 59
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    I will buy people a few bottles of champaigne on the day when Quark officially files for bankrupcy.
  • Reply 16 of 59
    arnold2arnold2 Posts: 29member
    Much as Quark as a company are a pain, and there is no OS X version, there a few problems with InDesign people should know before rushing out to buy it...



    You will have a HARD time getting it printed! Most repro depts are not going to be happy getting InDesign files, as they often incorporate items within them that can't go through to RIP's - transparency and the like. One contributor noted that you can 'send them a PDF', but InDesign has inferior PDF export properties to Distiller - if you want to send a printer a PDF, they will usually have set up their own settings in a Distiller JobOptions file - which they supply to customers. The only work-around is to save the InDesign file as a PostScript file, and distill that (or send the printer the file), but even then some of the newer features in InDesign will be in the PostScript file, and may crash the RIP.



    That said, the on-screen display in InDesign is nicer than Quark ! Just don't diss the program instead of the company - imagine, if Quark dies, Adobe will have a stranglehold on DTP ! What we need is a GREAT new version of Quark to COMPETE with InDesign - lowering Quark's price would help, too !
  • Reply 17 of 59
    maskermasker Posts: 451member
    It's time for me to purchase either Quark 5.0 or Adobe InDesign 2.0 and I am looking at InDesign failry hard.



    A question to all the InDesign users on this thread.. how many of you are graphic professionals?



    The work I do is generally the most complicated stuff. I do a lot of catalog design where the pages number up to and over 100 pages. How does InDesign handle large documents like this with many, many high res images?



    Quark is a clunker but still a productive tool. (I've been using it for 10 years now.)



    MSKR



    [ 07-08-2002: Message edited by: Masker ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 59
    stick with what you know. arny is right there are some issues with indesign, most can be worked around but if your comfortable using quark and haven't got to the point of of where it is driving you absolutely batty, then continue using it. indesign has some very nice features, but think it needs maybe one more version to where i would make the switch.
  • Reply 19 of 59
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    I did a lot of asking around before I switched from Quark to InDesign 2, and not one person I spoke to who HAD switched, had anything negative to say about InDesign.
  • Reply 20 of 59
    sizzle chestsizzle chest Posts: 1,133member
    One thing I should add, though.... the projects I'm doing with InDesign (and previously with Quark) are not extremely hardcare. Certainly nothing with 1,000 pages! One of the reasons I felt fairly confident moving to InDesign was that my CD package designs are fairly repetitive and template-based, so I figured that if I could get any kinks or problems worked out (none so far), I'd have smooth sailing with an app that's just vastly more pleasant to work with.
Sign In or Register to comment.