Only booting in OS X until June of 2003! - No new processor before that?
(macintouch)
A MacInTouch reader offered his notes and comments about the latest Quark gossip, which revolves around the incompatibility of QuarkXpress with Mac OS X, contributing to the delay in Mac OS X acceptance in the professional graphics market:
I know by now everyone has probably heard about the Quark Executive Summary Meeting held in New York a few weeks ago, where Fred Ebrahimi (CEO of Quark Inc.) made several startling comments concerning the future of Quark XPress. [Scroll down to "Stick a Quark in It" from Happy Talk]
I doubt however that anyone has heard the latest development in this saga. Apparently a representative from Quark has been calling the attendees of that meeting and informing them of a conversation between Steve Jobs and Fred Ebrahimi. According to Quark, Steve Jobs agreed to delay the policy of all new Macs only booting in OS X (after January 1st) until June of 2003. This is to accommodate the much delayed release of the OS X native version of Quark XPress 6.0. The purpose of Quark's call was to reassure the attendees that they will be able to run Xpress in Mac OS 9 on new machines until June of 2003.
I don't know if this is an attempt by Quark to say whatever they can to get sales and the confidence of their customers. I do however, find it difficult to believe that Apple would reverse their stance on Mac OS 9 booting after the first of the year.
----
Could this mean also, that we won't get new processor before June 2003? So Apple will continue with G4? New processor, only booting in OS X?
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Stratosfear ]</p>
A MacInTouch reader offered his notes and comments about the latest Quark gossip, which revolves around the incompatibility of QuarkXpress with Mac OS X, contributing to the delay in Mac OS X acceptance in the professional graphics market:
I know by now everyone has probably heard about the Quark Executive Summary Meeting held in New York a few weeks ago, where Fred Ebrahimi (CEO of Quark Inc.) made several startling comments concerning the future of Quark XPress. [Scroll down to "Stick a Quark in It" from Happy Talk]
I doubt however that anyone has heard the latest development in this saga. Apparently a representative from Quark has been calling the attendees of that meeting and informing them of a conversation between Steve Jobs and Fred Ebrahimi. According to Quark, Steve Jobs agreed to delay the policy of all new Macs only booting in OS X (after January 1st) until June of 2003. This is to accommodate the much delayed release of the OS X native version of Quark XPress 6.0. The purpose of Quark's call was to reassure the attendees that they will be able to run Xpress in Mac OS 9 on new machines until June of 2003.
I don't know if this is an attempt by Quark to say whatever they can to get sales and the confidence of their customers. I do however, find it difficult to believe that Apple would reverse their stance on Mac OS 9 booting after the first of the year.
----
Could this mean also, that we won't get new processor before June 2003? So Apple will continue with G4? New processor, only booting in OS X?
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Stratosfear ]</p>
Comments
<strong>(macintouch)
A MacInTouch reader offered his notes and comments about the latest Quark gossip, which revolves around the incompatibility of QuarkXpress with Mac OS X, contributing to the delay in Mac OS X acceptance in the professional graphics market:
I know by now everyone has probably heard about the Quark Executive Summary Meeting held in New York a few weeks ago, where Fred Ebrahimi (CEO of Quark Inc.) made several startling comments concerning the future of Quark XPress. [Scroll down to "Stick a Quark in It" from Happy Talk]
I doubt however that anyone has heard the latest development in this saga. Apparently a representative from Quark has been calling the attendees of that meeting and informing them of a conversation between Steve Jobs and Fred Ebrahimi. According to Quark, Steve Jobs agreed to delay the policy of all new Macs only booting in OS X (after January 1st) until June of 2003. This is to accommodate the much delayed release of the OS X native version of Quark XPress 6.0. The purpose of Quark's call was to reassure the attendees that they will be able to run Xpress in Mac OS 9 on new machines until June of 2003.
I don't know if this is an attempt by Quark to say whatever they can to get sales and the confidence of their customers. I do however, find it difficult to believe that Apple would reverse their stance on Mac OS 9 booting after the first of the year.
----
Could this mean also, that we won't get new processor before June 2003? So Apple will continue with G4? New processor, only booting in OS X?
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Stratosfear ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If Apple can make a G4 boot OS 9 then i dont see any reason a 970 couldnt be made to. But this will cost Apple money in the continued development of OS 9 to support new hardware configurations . . . If I were Jobs I would say to Quark, sure if you pay us to keep the OS 9 development going, and we have a joint conference call where we make the anouncement that we are continuing the development specifically at the request on one of our clients...this would be a boost for developer relations, even at the risk of continuing the slow adoption of OS X. Apple would be better served by making the classic layer a more seamless, and doing a good demo of Quark on Classic inside of OS X.
By the way. Delay on OS X only boot seem to relate to a lot of things. I guess it must be hardware-related or some software issue. I think mostly are from big apps like audio stuff....apps are here but plug-ins aren't.
Quark maybe one of the issue but I don't think it really is that big. I have a feeling that Quark is deliberately over exaggerating their importance and tell people they "do care" their customers
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
2) Panther, which is one of pieces that will force OSX only boots, won't be availible until July 03 anyway. Lack of enablers and drivers for 9 will be the other piece.
3) It is my personaly opinion that Jan 03 is a too early cut off date. July is much better. August-Sept would even be better as the Education buying season would be over. They could shift the pro systems in July and do the Edu systems in Sept.
All I care is what hardware we are going to see......
The 'must have' Photoshop plug-ins have certainly taken their time in the grand scheme of things. And some old favourites of mine (KPT 3, 5...) won't work in 'X'.
I'd personally, give '9' some more time. Quark need more time. To be fair, they do have a massive installed base. They were panned for previously releasing 'buggy' versions. If they're twice shy now, it's understandable. In mission criticable situations, Quark 'X' will have to be 'bomb proof' and they'll have to test that to death. Lest we forget, Adobe took their sweet time over Photoshop on 'X'. They stook to their developmental guns. I don't see Quark swaying where Adobe didn't.
Personally, I don't think we'll see Quark 'X' until late Spring at the earliest by the looks of things. Summer more likely.
In the end, I don't care much...(to be honest.)
I've heard great things about Indesign 2, version 3 is imminent...and as I contemplate the arrival of the 970 and an Adobe Design Collection to go with it, I couldn't care less what Quark do.
There's a detectable smell of 'Wintel only' ambitions in the air. Many of the 'behind the scenes' comments seem to leave me with sour Quark sentiments. I don't know what their game plan in is. But Mac users have a choice. I can see more and more print folks moving over to Indesign with Quark's current and noticeable 'attitude'.
I've used Quark. Easy to use. Simple. But some of Indesign's features leave it eating dust.
Quark better be careful or Adobe, having put the knife in, might twist it in 2003.
Lemon Bon Bon
A bit of irony. My wife used InDesign 1.0 when it first came out on a G4 to design and layout the coffee table book "In Our Words, 25 years of Microsoft". This book project was contracted by Microsoft. The files never even touched a Windozed machine.
<strong>
A bit of irony. My wife used InDesign 1.0 when it first came out on a G4 to design and layout the coffee table book "In Our Words, 25 years of Microsoft". This book project was contracted by Microsoft. The files never even touched a Windozed machine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like your signature too.
<strong>2) Panther, which is one of pieces that will force OSX only boots</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really, no. There are two reasons for the OS X only boot initiative: they want companies like Quark to either finally begin working on OS X versions, and they want to get rid of the Mac OS ROM chip that is pointless with OS X.
<strong>... I'd personally, give '9' some more time. Quark need more time. To be fair, they do have a massive installed base. They were panned for previously releasing 'buggy' versions. If they're twice shy now, it's understandable. In mission criticable situations, Quark 'X' will have to be 'bomb proof' and they'll have to test that to death.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's no excuse for Quark being late. They had their time. R.I.P.
Mission criticable situations? Are there any other situations for graphic designers? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>I'll say it again, we will get a new G4 with new Mobo in Jan/Feb.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is 1.3Ghz G4 count as new?
By the way. If Dual 1.6 Ghz AND $500 price cut that would make sense.
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
<strong>
There's no excuse for Quark being late. They had their time. R.I.P.
Mission criticable situations? Are there any other situations for graphic designers? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't think the reason quark isn't on OS X yet is belligerence or whatever, as a lot of people seem to think.
i think quark has been trying to move to X, but has had a ton of hangups along the way. a big part of this problem has been that quark, from early versions to 5.0 seems to have just been mildly patched, rather than been given full proper updates with each release. from what i understand, the codebase of the quark release for system 7 isn't too far off from the latest release. needless to say, this makes incredbily difficult for them to carbonize for OS X. coupled with this, Quark got rid of a bunch of their programmers and replaced them with cheap programmers from india. i think i read that last part at ars.
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: progmac ]</p>
<strong>
Is 1.3Ghz G4 count as new?
By the way. If Dual 1.6 Ghz AND $500 price cut that would make sense.
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not sure, only if it's on a new mobo
[quote] Another user provided a similar report. According to this customer, a Quark representative called to say that Apple would continue to sell the current G4s to XPress customers next year, even if new hardware is released that won't boot into OS 9. "Yeah, I really want to buy yesterday's Mac so I can run theirapp," the user said sarcastically. <hr></blockquote>
So that's the meaning behind "Booting into OS9 on new Apple hardware in 2003".
The new machines will actually be old ones. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>a big part of this problem has been that quark, from early versions to 5.0 seems to have just been mildly patched, rather than been given full proper updates with each release.
[ 12-10-2002: Message edited by: progmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
well, of course. otherwise, they might risk breaking the quark alien easter-egg.
plus, folks, quark is relying on the fact that many people have über-expensive workflows based in QPS and run too fast to make a switch easily (consider newspapers, that can't stop for a second to hammer out "technical issues"). quark does need to change their pricing structure, though. XPress is just too much money, but they charged that much because they were the only game in town for a very long time. now with adobe offering a free copy of indesign in your next box of cheerios, well...
[ 12-11-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
<strong>
well, of course. otherwise, they might risk breaking the quark alien easter-egg.
Tap, tap, tap... shoot that frame!
<strong>i think quark has been trying to move to X, but has had a ton of hangups along the way. a big part of this problem has been that quark, from early versions to 5.0 seems to have just been mildly patched, rather than been given full proper updates with each release.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey look, someone gets it!
Quark has been patch, patch, patch... for at least 10 years. And now they really have to rewrite the app, not just because of X but because of issues like dealing with Unicode text and OpenType fonts - if they don't do it now, then they may as well forget about it.
But when they do these things they'll be back where Adobe was with InDesign 1.0 - in the crapper. They can't afford that either, so as someone else wrote, the really do have to release a bombproof app - and I think they will.
For all you of you saying you're seeing switchers from XPress to InDesign... even Adobe reckons only one in 10 print jobs is completed with InDesign over XPress.
It really is Quark's game to lose.
As to Apple and X only booting - I think they've shot themselves in the foot, and they know it. They won't force people to adopt X via brute force, they'll have to sit and wait for the market to catch up - same as MS does.
A good date to annouce OS X only booting would have been when Steve did, a few months ago. A good date to implement it would have been Jan 2004, rather than Jan 2003.
I don't believe there are any technical reason why Apple did thism other than to gets Steve's dream moving along.
<strong>I get it. Quark didn't screw up because they were complacent. They did it because they were sloppy, cost-cutting, lazy, poorly managed, lacking foresight... must I go on?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're kind of right, there was a lot of complacency in there.
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>When the Mac switched to PPC, Adobe was there with a PPC optimized version of Photoshop before the new machines were even out. Quark decided not to produce a PPC version of Xpress. Correct me if I'm wrong but Xpress 5 still contains mounds and mounds of 68k code.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're wrong. XPress was one of the first PPC applications out there. Where they were different to most was that they charged for the PPC version in addition to an upgrade - until very recently.
I don't think 5.0 will run on 68k even.
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>(photoshop 7) was a completely revamped, updated version that runs very well, and we're all happy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bollocks. PS7 was as much of a patch as any version of XPress. And there are few new features in it to make it worthy of an upgrade.
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>Give me a break. They either don't care or they are incompetent (or both). There are no other excuses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They had your twin working on the job...