I don't know any digital artists who use Quark. Why would they use that?
Considering that anyone who would still be using Quark 4 for anything also is using OS 9 or Classic to do so is pretty strange at this time. Quark doesn't work too well in Classic due to driver issues, among other things.
My apologies, I meant Quark 6.
I'm a former Pagemaker vet who moved to InDesign, so I messed up the versioning. IIRC Q6 was the first version to support Mac OS X and had a couple of small point updates in 2004/2005.
Yeah...asking attendees at a Photoshop conference if they plan on upgrading to CS3 is pretty much a self-fulfilling prophecy sort of thing. Not only are they obviously rabid faithful, they obviously have the necessary spare cash to afford the upgrade. Those conferences (and the air fare) aren't cheap.
Personally, I'd love to upgrade, but I'm finding the cost to go from CS1 to Design Premium a bit steep to justify at this time. Especially since I don't really see any real "can't live without" feature to justify the outlay.
I'm a former Pagemaker vet who moved to InDesign, so I messed up the versioning. IIRC Q6 was the first version to support Mac OS X and had a couple of small point updates in 2004/2005.
Quark 6 was the first OS X version, and by far, the worst one, with many bugs, and few OS X specific features, basically an OS X version if the ill conceived version 5, which was universially disliked for good reason. Quark was pushing web publishing with that one.
Artists still would not use Quark. It isn't meant for them, and has no artist specific features. Very limited and awkward, to say the least.
I got a sneak peek at CS3 and all I can say is that the knifing of Golive for the very left-brain, "PC-esque" Dreamweaver is a disaster. DW is just not intuitive from it's lack of easy to use grid, its less than apparent integration with the other Adobe apps is a rush job at best. Golive has a learning curve but it had a Mac minded drag and drop interface that Dreamweaver is sadly lacking. I doubt writing Adobe would bring Golive back, big companies don't care when there are no other choices are available.
I got a sneak peek at CS3 and all I can say is that the knifing of Golive for the very left-brain, "PC-esque" Dreamweaver is a disaster. DW is just not intuitive from it's lack of easy to use grid, its less than apparent integration with the other Adobe apps is a rush job at best. Golive has a learning curve but it had a Mac minded drag and drop interface that Dreamweaver is sadly lacking. I doubt writing Adobe would bring Golive back, big companies don't care when there are no other choices are available.
It's funny you should say that.
Dreamweaver has always been considered to be a much better app than GoLive. It was always though of as the weakest of the CS Suite.
I got a sneak peek at CS3 and all I can say is that the knifing of Golive for the very left-brain, "PC-esque" Dreamweaver is a disaster. DW is just not intuitive from it's lack of easy to use grid, its less than apparent integration with the other Adobe apps is a rush job at best. Golive has a learning curve but it had a Mac minded drag and drop interface that Dreamweaver is sadly lacking. I doubt writing Adobe would bring Golive back, big companies don't care when there are no other choices are available.
Comments
I don't know any digital artists who use Quark. Why would they use that?
Considering that anyone who would still be using Quark 4 for anything also is using OS 9 or Classic to do so is pretty strange at this time. Quark doesn't work too well in Classic due to driver issues, among other things.
My apologies, I meant Quark 6.
I'm a former Pagemaker vet who moved to InDesign, so I messed up the versioning. IIRC Q6 was the first version to support Mac OS X and had a couple of small point updates in 2004/2005.
Personally, I'd love to upgrade, but I'm finding the cost to go from CS1 to Design Premium a bit steep to justify at this time. Especially since I don't really see any real "can't live without" feature to justify the outlay.
My apologies, I meant Quark 6.
I'm a former Pagemaker vet who moved to InDesign, so I messed up the versioning. IIRC Q6 was the first version to support Mac OS X and had a couple of small point updates in 2004/2005.
Quark 6 was the first OS X version, and by far, the worst one, with many bugs, and few OS X specific features, basically an OS X version if the ill conceived version 5, which was universially disliked for good reason. Quark was pushing web publishing with that one.
Artists still would not use Quark. It isn't meant for them, and has no artist specific features. Very limited and awkward, to say the least.
I got a sneak peek at CS3 and all I can say is that the knifing of Golive for the very left-brain, "PC-esque" Dreamweaver is a disaster. DW is just not intuitive from it's lack of easy to use grid, its less than apparent integration with the other Adobe apps is a rush job at best. Golive has a learning curve but it had a Mac minded drag and drop interface that Dreamweaver is sadly lacking. I doubt writing Adobe would bring Golive back, big companies don't care when there are no other choices are available.
It's funny you should say that.
Dreamweaver has always been considered to be a much better app than GoLive. It was always though of as the weakest of the CS Suite.
I got a sneak peek at CS3 and all I can say is that the knifing of Golive for the very left-brain, "PC-esque" Dreamweaver is a disaster. DW is just not intuitive from it's lack of easy to use grid, its less than apparent integration with the other Adobe apps is a rush job at best. Golive has a learning curve but it had a Mac minded drag and drop interface that Dreamweaver is sadly lacking. I doubt writing Adobe would bring Golive back, big companies don't care when there are no other choices are available.
GoLive is not dead, only resting.