quark 6.0----finally a quark for os X??
August 1, 2002 2:03PM
edited January 2014
i hope so g
Reply 1 of 6
August 1, 2002 2:23PM
To be quite honest, I've been fed up with Quark as a company for years. I hope they either get their act together and keep it that way, or just disappear. I wish they would pick one...
Reply 2 of 6
August 1, 2002 2:36PM
The Mac IT person at where I work is eager to move to OS X, but is basically waiting for a Carbonized Quark.
We'll probably wait until QX 6.1 (just to make sure those bugs are ironed out).
It's looking like the OS X transition will get a big push in early to mid 03.
Reply 3 of 6
August 1, 2002 3:08PM
i agree...i think quark is the final hurdle...once it is os x, i think we really will see the demise of os 9...and then apple can really push x hard...g
Reply 4 of 6
August 1, 2002 3:24PM
geez, i just read the story at eWeek, excerpted here:
"Clearly, the publishing industry is largely working on the Mac OS and Mac OS X is the future of the Mac," Quark spokesman Glen Turpin said. "We're absolutely committed to release QuarkXPress for Mac OS X."
Sources predicted that Mac and Windows versions of XPress 6.0 will debut in early 2003, perhaps in time for January's Macworld Expo/San Francisco. In addition to Carbon support, the upgrade will feature PostScript 3 support and a new XML engine to replace the company's current Avenue.quark XML-conversion application.
Quark's Turpin declined to specify a version number, features or a date for the release.
The next version of XPress will be incompatible with earlier versions of plug-ins created by third-party developers, but Turpin said Quark is working with third-party developers of XPress extensions on compatible new versions.
are they friggin' NUTS?!?! i have been trying to get os x installed at our workplace, but i won't get the go-ahead from the executives above me until they feel confident that quark will work under the new system... and flawlessly, to boot. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
and the xtensions are gonna break AGAIN?????? thank god i didn't sink a lot of money into quark 5-compatible xtensions, 'cause i'd just have to buy them all over AGAIN. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
wow, postscript level 3 support. they're, what, 5 years late??? (okay, maybe an exaggeration, but still...).
won't specify a version number... yep, it'll cost a LOT of cash, and i'm gonna wince when my budget gets used up on quark updates just to work with the rest of the applications on our computers. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
damn, damn, damn. can someone please explain to me what crackhead in denver came up with this "business-model" they're working with???
Reply 5 of 6
August 1, 2002 3:34PM
Rok hits the nail on the head. Sometimes you get the feeling that Quark is intentionally trying to be difficult. Were they truly committed to Mac OS X, they would have at least specified a version number for the carbon version... but you would have expected them to have shipped a carbon version by now if they really cared. PostScript 3 support should have been in the program already...
Quark really needs to get off the cross, we've got better uses for the wood.
Reply 6 of 6
August 1, 2002 3:47PM
[quote]Originally posted by M3D Jack:
<strong>Rok hits the nail on the head. Sometimes you get the feeling that Quark is intentionally trying to be difficult. Were they truly committed to Mac OS X, they would have at least specified a version number for the carbon version... but you would have expected them to have shipped a carbon version by now if they really cared. PostScript 3 support should have been in the program already...
Quark really needs to get off the cross, we've got better uses for the wood.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Quark as a company is atrocious.
Quark XPress as a product is the standard. (And not a bad one either, but for the past few years increasingly, exasperatingly behind the curve.)
The publishing industry is probably one of the slowest around.
So put all that together and you have the current situation. It's crazy that companies would prefer to wait for Quark to get their act together instead of moving to InDesign, but that's how it is.
the time for Adobe to move aggressively, though. If they can improve InDesign's OS X performance in Indy 2.5 and offer sidegrade discounts to InDesign plug-ins to similar XTensions, they might be able to do some serious wooing...