quark sneek peeks

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 47
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by advocate:

    <strong>



    The Quark color panel is better than Apple's.

    That might be one reason.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The Color panel is extensible. They can add whatever they want to it. Just look at SketchUp, which is a 3D app that adds a materials library to it. Anyhoo, the point's the same.
  • Reply 22 of 47
    Quark is the worst. I don't know who is running that company but they act like they deserve a thanks for developing their products??? Where does this mentality come from.



    I am a happy InDesign 2.0.1 user and lovin' it. The tables work great for me and when I am done, I just go with a Press Ready PDF.



    BOOH Quark and their superiority complex. Ya, thanks a lot for multiple undoes, every other product has only been doing it for about 5 years now.



    Also, "If you register you can download a plug-in for full resolution screens" WHO ARE THEY KIDDING. WE ARE PROFESSIONALS WE DON'T WANT THAT HASSLE!!!



    IF YOU REGISTER WE'LL SEND YOU TIRES TO THE CAR YOU JUST BOUGHT... THANKS A MILLION!!!
  • Reply 23 of 47
    I have just been using an early Beta of Quark 6, so perhaps this feedback might be more relevent here....



    It's a Carbon app - you have to fiddle with TinkerTool to get small type point sizes to be smoothed.



    But it's a whole lot quicker than InDesign!



    On the same Mac, InDesign is REALLY slow, but Quark 6 is much quicker - screen re-fresh and general useability - and this is on a iMac 350MHz !



    The high-res preview isn't enabled yet, so I can't comment - although high-res in InDesign is very slow, even on a fast PC.



    Layer handling is really nice. PDF output is only enabled at the moment either by saving a low-res PDF from the print dialog, or making a Postscript and Distilling it.



    The only advantage I can think InDesign has is support for transparency and shadows, and built-in PDF export - but the trade-off is slow speed. I have run InDesign on a really fast PC, and I would dread to do a multi-page brochure with it !
  • Reply 24 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by arnold2:

    <strong>

    The only advantage I can think InDesign has is support for transparency and shadows, and built-in PDF export - but the trade-off is slow speed. I have run InDesign on a really fast PC, and I would dread to do a multi-page brochure with it !</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I only find it slow when switching between pages. Other advantages InDesdign has are price, frequent upgrades, don't have to worry about you thousand dollar extensions breaking with each update, support for native illustrator and photoshop files.



    Service shops may be holding back, but design houses are switching in droves, the pros vastly out weigh the cons.
  • Reply 26 of 47
    but i miss my quark....yeah, all the old tools, the old format...ahhh, memories



    g







    dang, image was too big, now it is too small....



    <a href="http://www.macgeneration.com/mgnews/categories/en_passant/upload/xpress6/Image5.jpg"; target="_blank">hell, go here</a>



    [ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
  • Reply 27 of 47
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>Ugly interface that smells of bad carbon port.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Indeed, when you look closely, it does look like a very begrudging move to Aqua. Not much spit and polish on it in some places, though it's the sort of thing they might (ha) fix while still in beta. This app would still use the System 7 UI if it could. They're probably happy it's not too far from that really, though all their effort into going Platinum in 2000 must seem like a big waste.
  • Reply 28 of 47
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>Not much spit and polish on it in some places, though it's the sort of thing they might (ha) fix while still in beta. This app would still use the System 7 UI if it could. They're probably happy it's not too far from that really, though all their effort into going Platinum in 2000 must seem like a big waste. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Hehe



    I don't think they will polish it much. Flaws as using non standard sized tabs, ugly borders on pallettes, not using the correct font and so on is just what you usually see when sloppy Mac OS 9 programmers make sloppy Mac OS X apps.



    The strange thing is that Quark says the app is rewritten.



    Quark's interface designer (if they have one ) must have a very easy job - some of the things are exactly the same as it was 10+ years ago.



    [ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
  • Reply 29 of 47
    costiquecostique Posts: 1,084member
    [quote]Originally posted by JLL:

    <strong>I don't think they will polish it much.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Even if they wished.

    [quote]<strong>The strange thing is that Quark says the app is rewritten.

    Quark's interface designer (if they have one ) must have a very easy job - some of the things are exactly the same as it was 10+ years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>

    They used to have a blind interface designer of their own. Now that he has shoot himself, a tiny company like Quark cannot afford an artist to redraw an icon or two. And since ResEdit is the only editor Quark's developers know, it took them almost 3 years to invent 'Mac OS look and feel'. Don't worry it has some rough edges ? thank God if you see Mac OS X-compliant keyboard shortcuts.
  • Reply 30 of 47
    do you think you'll be able to upgrade from let's say ver3.2? quark still keeps sending stuff to upgrade. i don't want to have to buy at full price
  • Reply 31 of 47
    4 random notes:

    1. Quark's color pallette is different because it is important to have ONLY the colors needed to output the job in the quark file. Every document has its own specific color palette.

    2. Quark is good. It is the best page layout program. (Although I have screamed at it on occasion.)

    3. Quark 5 was completely unneccessary.

    4. I hope they finish the damn thing soon because I can't stand the constant jabbering about how great INDesign is. It is simply too croakey. If Quark 6 ends up as sluggish as INDesign I will shed 8 and a half tears.
  • Reply 32 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by burningwheel:

    <strong>do you think you'll be able to upgrade from let's say ver3.2? quark still keeps sending stuff to upgrade. i don't want to have to buy at full price</strong><hr></blockquote>



    i doubt it.

    if they continue on as they have in the past,

    they'll give you a price break for having 4.

    even more of a price break for having 5.



    full version..............$899.00

    ugrade from 5.........$279.00

    ugrade from 4.........$379.00
  • Reply 33 of 47
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>



    i doubt it.

    if they continue on as they have in the past,

    they'll give you a price break for having 4.

    even more of a price break for having 5.



    full version..............$899.00

    ugrade from 5.........$279.00

    ugrade from 4.........$379.00</strong><hr></blockquote>



    download...................$0.00





    haha jk...piracy is wrong
  • Reply 34 of 47
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>i doubt it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    actually, for any of you who have ever worked around a major newspaper or magazine using QuarkXPress, almost all editorial-designer workflows were arranged around a system called QPS. for the uninitiated, imagine a central server dedicated witht he task of checking out stories to editors for copy changes, layout handled by the layout artists, and each party being informed when the other makes a change (and the server acts as traffic cop to track all changes, make sure no one steps on anyone's toes, and no one accidentally deletes someone else's work). it was a great system, and when it was the only thing going, they charged a whopping fee (i think US$30K, no joke, after training -- which had to take place at Quark HQ in Denver). Adobe and several partners (like Managing Editor and Woodwing from The Netherlands) have pretty much reverse-engineered the same system with InCopy, InDesign, and InScope (and TruEdit or Smart Connection Pro -- InDesign Plug-ins).



    so you can imagine the amount of cash that was invested in a system like this. and you can also imagine how a daily newspaper just can't stop production on the promise that an upgrade will work better. those things just can't stop running. so TONS of places are still using 3.32. Why? 'cause it was working, and they can't risk it not working.



    so i have to think -- unless Quark has the most clueless execs in software history -- that they know they have to offer an acceptable, cheap and safe upgrade path from 3.32. i think Quark has, in the short and medium term, sacrificed the small firms and independent designers and students to InDesign for the short term to keep the cash cow large companies happy.
  • Reply 35 of 47
    [quote]Originally posted by running with scissors:

    <strong>



    i doubt it.

    if they continue on as they have in the past,

    they'll give you a price break for having 4.

    even more of a price break for having 5.



    full version..............$899.00

    ugrade from 5.........$279.00

    ugrade from 4.........$379.00</strong><hr></blockquote>





    i wonder why they keep sending me info about upgrading then.. i suspect they will let me upgrade
  • Reply 36 of 47
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    I installed 5 copies of InDesign on designers computers yesterday. So far they liked it but they are strictly told it's for non critical use (for now), mainly for special projects. Hopefully this is the first foot in the door to a more widespread adoption of ID.
  • Reply 37 of 47
    Well, I have been given an official Quark 6 preview and here is what you can expect (keep in mind this is very early beta and stuff changes):



    1. right now high-rez previews do not work all the time. Bitmapped files work fine but EPS files are still as ugly as ever.



    2. Will not import PDF, .AI or .PSD files.



    3. Will not import Excel files into table. It does import MS Word 98+ files but it was flakey.



    4. Table support has been improved since 5 but pales by comparison to InDesign 2.0



    5. Only saves back to version 5 and 6.



    6. It does open version 4 files. I don't have verion 3 files kicking around so I couldn't test those. I reckon they should open fine.



    7. They've wasted even more time on web features. ugh.



    8. Same old confusing and irritating print dialog



    9. It still crashes



    10. Text boxes now anti-alias all the text... until you rotate the box and it goes to bitmap hell.



    11.A maxminum of 30 undo levels



    12. Collect for output now does fonts



    Basically its a direct and plain port of Quark 5 to Carbon. There are NO wizbang features. It feels just like version 4 or 5 but gets native OS X support. Most of the new features are implemented as Quark Xtensions as expected, any of you with a ton of OS 9 xtension are going to need to upgrade ALL of them as Classic code will not run unmodified in Quark 6, but you knew this....



    So far my feeling is if you are sitting on the fence re: Quark and InDesign and are expecting Quark to beat InDesign then you're out of luck. Not going to happen here. Go and get InDesign since it does so much more.



    If you're just looking for a native Mac OS X version of Quark so you don't have to reboot everytime it crashes then run and get it when it comes out sometime this century. This release will finally quiet the folks who want to move to OS X but are waiting on a native port. Noting more, nothing less.



    In the meantime, I'm expecting to see a beta of InDesign 3.0 very soon...



    One more thing about the speed issue: Quark has always been a lean and mean layout app which is why its "fast". InDesign onthe other hand os doing so much more work than Quark is so I think you need to cut them some slack. Keep in mind InDesing can be very fast if you go and customize the graphics display prefs. Turn off high-rez previews and anti aliasing to see how much faster is can be. We run it on dual 867 and 1.25 machines and its VERY usable.
  • Reply 38 of 47
    bluesignsbluesigns Posts: 315member
    you know the InDesign development team is furiously working to deliver another stunning array of improvements.



    and you know they are going to try to time the release to totally spank Quark at their own game.



    the king is dead. long live the king.
  • Reply 39 of 47
    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> I just don't get it..I love quark, use it EVERY FREGGIN' DAY. I however do not like having to use it in classic mode. I don't know if quark chose to "do a coplete re-write" of the software, or if Apple pushed it. I do know that Quark in the past has hailed Apple users as their main staple. We have been loyal...and I think that they should have been a little bit quicker on the pick up of porting this to OSX. Not a complete native version, but a carbon version..it would have been a much faster process to get it to market for all of us HUNGRY Quark users. (not to mention that it would have a softer transistion for people to move to OSX, and give Quark the opportunity to make that much more money selling software to BOTH sides of the Apple 9 vs. X fence, and taken some "scariness" out of it.)I have bought and use on occasion InDesign..I do not care for InDesign..due to the fact that they treat text and picture boxes the SAME as PageMaker does! The whole reason I NEVER used PageMaker (professionally) was because of it's confusing way it handled things. Think about it..if you have a box...do you put things ON the box, or IN the box? I don't know about you, but the last time you moved, did you have stacks of crap ON TOP of every box, or did you put all of your stuff IN THE BOX..like a normal person? Granted, Adobe was first on the train..but they still ingore the fact that people did not user PageMaker BECAUSE OF. If they changed the way that InDesign acted with text and picture boxes, to a more NORMAL way (more quark-like if you will)and on top of adopting more keyboard shortcuts and imitated the way that there is a collect for output, I think that they would do some damage..and have a much larger conversion base. Plus alot of the printers that I am forced to use, don't take InDesign yet, and if they do, they charge more for the job! Who cares more about their consumers? The one who takes the time to get a application that will work well with their user base, and change things for their users that they requested, or a company who rehased their PAGEMAKER application and forced their way of thinking on the general populus? I guess it is up to each individual to decide for one's self..but if you are gonna bag on either side..you should really take a loong look at what you really want? Quality and familiarity ( along with wide acceptance) or whoever was first on the porting boat, with a rehash of a previous application that was sunk in the crapper? I think I am willing to hold out..even though Quark has taken it's time to port it to a native version (granted interface is not all that) as long as it is reliable..I am willing to stick with that. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />



    [ 03-02-2003: Message edited by: tommy_thompson ]</p>
  • Reply 40 of 47
    jlljll Posts: 2,713member
    What happened to your Return key?
Sign In or Register to comment.