Search:

  Advanced Search

front page → dtp workflow

share this article

what are these? ↓ (wikipedia link)
digg!	delicious	reddit	facebook	stumbleupon	technorati

Comment Form

Time of Entry: 2007 10 22 UT - by fc

I find it amusing that the so called killer features of Quark actually originate from the hands of 3rd party developers. Maybe Adobe should buy all of the little people and call it their own.

Time of Entry: 2007 10 28 UT - by Baz

Fascinating how, with all the viral marketing about InDesign being the new *Quark killer* and n00bie designers screaming on forums about Quark being ‘cra*p, how good old QuarkXpress turns out to be the better package after all.

I always find it interesting that whenever I read some forum post about some InDesign feature being ‘unique’, that it turns out that the person making the post simply doesn’t know how to use the software properly.

Both packages are good. But Quark simply understand the traditional print publishing industry better and the software shows this.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by Jane Kailey

QUARKXPRESS 7: THE WORSE SOFTWARE PRODUCT EVER. IT’S 2008 FOR GOD’S SAKE!

Although, I’m not extremely familiar with InDesign (I own 2.0.2 and have tried CS3), I can tell you that Quark definitely DOES NOT understand designer’s and producer’s needs. Additionally I have experienced about 200 major bugs in QuarkXPress, most of which are not only not being fixed, but with new releases, more bugs are introduced. Older versions of QX were far better than 7. It’s getting worse and worse with age. There are screen refresh problems, leading problems, file size problems, file opening and saving problems. (It can take up to a minute to open a small file after printing and when items and pages are removed from documents, file space is frequently not released and a simple one-page document can end up being 600MB. Overall performance is FAR, FAR SLOWER than earlier versions, and I have a dual 2GHZ G5. Just dragging around a few items on a page cannot keep up with the cursor (even if just dragging by rectangle).

I could go on and on, but I’ve already spend weeks and weeks of my time testing, producing test files, and reporting these problems.  VERY frustrating product. QX7 is WITHOUT A DOUBT THE WORST software package of ANY KIND I have every used (in 30 years) and I currently have almost 200 apps in my main appl folder and three current Macs.

Jane :((

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by TM

I think this report’s focus on speed is irrelevant. Design and prepress for the majority of us isn’t such a grind that a few minutes (and they are talking seconds here), matter that much one way or the other. What does matter are things like interface, appearance, etc. It’s what “design” is all about.

Think about it. Anyone can put words on a piece of paper, but a designer can make those words appealing. In the same way, a tool that is well-designed and appealing makes it a lot more enjoyable to use than one that is not. If that were not true, we’d all be out of a job.

If there were significant differences in what one product could do over the other, the above would not be as important. However, the two products are so relatively close that it becomes the details that matter.

All that aside, Indesign’s table features alone make it irreplacable. I use both Quark and Indesign on a daily basis. But, even if I did 90% of my work in Quark (and it is more like 15%), I’d still keep Indesign for complex table work.

The final, and most important factor: Indesign is what a majority of our customers have been migrating to over the last few years. Quark, by comparison, has been shrinking at a consistant rate.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by Don Isbell

I have used both Quark and InDesign (Adobe Creative Suite) for years. I’ve worked in prepress for 12 years at least. I beta tested Quark 7. They have not fixed the problems I told them about. Color management is not fixed. Would you like to open an old Quark document 6.5 version in Quark 7, and although the PANTONE names are the same, the CMYK values are different? No. Of course not. Yet that’s what happens. Would you like an untagged RGB (RGB without an ICC profile embedded) placed into Quark and take on the default Quark RGB (the new Quark RGB profile is the same as Adobe RGB (1998)) and have people’s faces looking sunburned? No. These images should be using sRGB IEC61966-2.1. Quark doesn’t listen. Will customers be able to tell that the skin will look sunburned? No, not unless they set their Proof Setup to CMYK or CMYK and Spot. WIth the default Proof Setup: None, these untagged images look like they’re using sRGB IEC61966-2.1 (which they should be), but when output, the RGB is actually using Quark’s default RGB (not sRGB IEC61966-2.1) as the output profile. So what people see on screen is not what they will get in print. And then there’s type rewrap. How many would like to open an old document that has to reprint, and have type reflow differently than it did before? Not anyone I know.

How’s about that for “Quark is perfect”? Not hardly. I made a post on PrintPlanet called “Quark is a lying piece of crap”, and I stand by it.

Don Isbell

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by DA Holman

“right within the application– Web and Flash layouts”

this line told me a lot about the perspective of the article. I do both print and interactive, and anyone in my position knows that there is no single application that does both well, esp not QXP. a heaping helping of features all in one app is not necessarily a good thing.

I was a QXP devotee and quite well-versed with the app up until ver 4. when InD CS came out roughly alongside ver 5, I saw the end in sight. I’ve since experimented with each version of these two competitors and have never been pleased with the user-experience of QXP—it simply makes it harder for me to create my print work. and when I jump over to the web, 90% of my technical work is done by hand right in the code, because nothing else does a clean enough job—certainly not a print-layout app.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by Quark or ID

“Overall performance is FAR, FAR SLOWER than earlier versions, and I have a dual 2GHZ G5.”

A G-5? Get with it and get a 2.8GHz Quad Core 8 core Intel Xeon Mac Pro. Quark 7 screams and was made for the Intel processor.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by mswales

i’m the cd at a small design studio where we use both indesign and quark. frankly, only the photoshop guy prefers indesign. all 6 other designers (we just did an office poll) find that indesign’s type handling features and interfaces are distinctly inferior to quarks. and every printer we work with prefers quark also. having said that, every intern we’ve had in the past two years is to some degree terrified of quark, which apparently is just not taught in depth in art school. students preferred pagemaker too, because it was easy to learn. so even though quark is a demonstrably better tool for designers, unless it gets taught it may be destined to go the way of the dinosaur…

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by Indy

Oh my. We’ve been hearing this forever - finally InDesign has all the tools to knock off Quark. Before InDesign came along it was Pagemaker that was going to be the imaginary “Quark Killer” app. Wonder what happened to those people who dropped their copies of Quark in the trash and invested $300-$400 in Pagemaker? Hmmm… wonder which program they’re using now that Adobe has abandoned Pagemaker to the trash heap of time? Or how about those Go Live users who were abandoned when Adobe dropped that one for Dreamweaver? And which long time Illustrator user can forget the time Adobe decided to change all the keyboard commands in that program on a whim and all that time and effort you had put into LEARNING those commands was now wasted much like that $300-$400 you spent on Pagemaker? And which long time Photoshop user can forget when Adobe decided - again, on a whim - to change how Photoshop handled color so for months every cmyk job was coming out “wrong” for no discernible reason? And let’s not forget the upgrades! Yes - every 12-18 months you’ll be getting an exciting new “UPGRADE” if you switch to InDesign because that’s how Adobe keeps up with the Microsofts of the world - by charging you $149 for a new box labeled “EXCITING NEW FEATURES” (that you don’t need) every year or so. So you decide - do you want a program that lasts for years without “upgrades”, or one that “upgrades” and changes features on you every year? Do you want a program that has been tried, tested and successful - or do you want the latest “Quark Killer” from the same folks who brought you (then took away) Pagemaker? Do you WANT to pay $149 every year for a new box of bugs and installation headaches? Or do you want Quark? Think it thru and the only solution is - you want QUARK.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 11 UT - by Adam

I have used Indesign and Quark for a while now.  I have worked in both the Newspaper and Printing industries, and I find that, like Jane, Quark has a lot of bugs that seem to get larger with every version. 

With Quark 7, I’ve had problems where link files refuse to update, saving problems, it refuses to access certain files from a certain disk occasionally, I’ve not figured out why, it seems random that I get a “cannot open xpress preferences”, but if I move the file to another disk, it will work fine.

Quark does not recognize system font updates, you have to restart the computer if you’ve loaded a new font, where Indesign recognizes it on the fly.  Quark PDF’s have had some trouble too, just for random reasons it seems Quark PDF’s will error out in the RIP software… I can regenerate the PDF the same way, and the second time it will be fine.

Indesign doesn’t have a lot of these problems… I think the #1 reason I use Indesign is that I can pull graphics straight out of a folder onto my document, rather than having to create a box and import it.  It’s just less steps, and therefore a lot faster, especially when placing a lot of graphics.

I use Quark where my customers use Quark, but my preference is Indesign all the way.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 12 UT - by Fraser Crozier

Without want to sound rude or condescending, Adobe owns postscript, which without, print would be very difficult to achieve in days gone by. They also have Illustrator, which is the virtual defacto of high end Illustration, which without, there would be very little complex art within a design. Then there is Photoshop, which is without a serious competitor in the print space, then there is InDesign, which seem to be across all of the essential basics of prepress and print. Finally, there is Bridge, which does a reasonably good job of connecting the dots.
I guess adding Quark into the mix would be like ripping the motor out of a BMW and replacing it with Volkswagen. The good thing is, delusion is the result of the power of choice. Enjoy your clouds.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 12 UT - by Mordy Golding

[snip] On the negative side, the creative tools in InDesign CS3 are often implemented as a link to the external applications in the Creative Suite [snip]

So let me understand this—a NEGATIVE of InDesign is its integration with industry-standard tools like Photoshop, Illustrator, and Acrobat.

But the whole speed thing is ludicrous. Really. I mean, you can state that one feature is faster here or there, but when you look at the overall WORKFLOW, InDesign is on such a high level, you can’t even compare them. It’s sad, in a way, that a program like Quark which was once such a significant part of any designer’s workflow is not totally irrelevant—just like my Syquest drives and X-acto blades.

Man, I wish I could have gotten paid to write up a “report” like this.

Time of Entry: 2008 02 12 UT - by Fraser Crozier

INDY
You may just have serious Adobe anxiety. Your isolationist comments suggest you are not currently working in a significant environment, where deadlines across 20 magazine titles and 220-330 users are climbing the mountain, otherwise you’d loosen your grip.
On one side you have trying to, and on the other side can do, so what is it that Quarkophiles don’t understand.
Some of the largest magazine publishers on the planet left the Quark-side some time ago, for a product that did have some teething problems, but alas, owned by a company that gives a damn, and actually listens when it matters.
What you cling onto are anecdotes of an immature Adobe climbing their own mountain, with a few slips here and a few slips there, but, the Adobe of today is a mature company with such a cult following amongst designers of today and tomorrow, not last century (age agnostic) that the notion of a person who can read and write yet not see common sense is actually quite amusing.
When Quark finally started to listed to the sound of a ship sailing into the night, giving it’s last farewell tune, they finally realised they stuffed up, suddenly improved their hearing and starting taking notice. Alas, far too late, too many people engaged with the alternative and really enjoying the tangible difference!

Time of Entry: 2008 02 12 UT - by Jane Kailey

“Get with it and get a 2.8GHz Quad Core 8 core Intel Xeon Mac Pro. Quark 7 screams and was made for the Intel processor.”

YOU “get with it.” It’s not cost-effective in business to dump 1-year-old G5 systems just because Quark puts out new, worse and worse versions of QX, especially since there’s no guarantee that the INTEL version would be any better. (They been putting out version 7 since for that long.) Even if it “screams” on an INTEL system, that does NOT alleviate the aforementioned bugs (which I’m now also experiencing in web and flash development which is even MORE UNSTABLE.

You “get with it” and open your eyes. Earlier versions QX ran WAY FASTER (and FAR LESS buggy) when I was running a G3 years ago. I was far more productive then (and even before then). What does THAT tell you?? It tells me that the “product” is getting worse; that their development team is getting worse; that they simply don’t care; that their “we’re listening” program ISN’T LISTENING. (There is no longer any response from their management and no longer any local support or management in NYC.).

Maybe it was BECAUSE OF INTEL development that Quark turned QX code into spaghetti.

Maybe ADOBE Indesign is Worse. But it’s 2008, for G*d’s sake and desktop publishing/design is GOING BACKWARDS. There is not product that REALLY meets our needs! (Not even our 1998 needs.)

Time of Entry: 2008 02 19 UT - by RV

hello id like to read the whole 34 page article i got this link from Quark Newsletter and they claim this:

“If you’re interested in reading the entire report, you can register to download it from the IT Enquirer Web site free of charge.”

i dont see any way to download or register myself FOR FREE the accounts page says something about 12 EURO

did the it-enquirer go for PAYED SUBSCRIPTION without telling Quark ?

is there a way to get this only report for FREE !!

Time of Entry: 2008 02 19 UT - by Erik Vlietinck

RV,

Why don’t you read the text? It says the 12 Euros apply as from today. They are for a whole year, for all reports. They cover the bandwidth expenses and ensure that the report won’t be plagiarised.

Quark doesn’t consult with me when they are going to announce the availability of a report to their users, just as I don’t inform them (or have to inform them) of changes on this site.

I have no affiliation with Quark—or did you think I wrote the report for them and was paid by them --as some commenters seem to think?

So, NO there is NO MORE WAY TO GET THIS or any other REPORT FOR FREE, but 12 EUROS FOR A WHOLE YEAR COME CLOSE, wouldn’t you say?

Time of Entry: 2008 02 19 UT - by Devox

i used xpress since version 2.0 for years and years and years…

After the release of version 7.0, I settled over to indesign… cause 7.0 brings all you never needed, wraped in a cheesy, badly programmed piece of software which lames down your PowerMac to the speed of a Quadra.

I’m print-designer, only for printed media. I don’t need a “web-Flash-mobilecontent-etc.” cross media application. And I don’t think that anyone who used quark for DTP before would like to use it now for “building webpages for mobile devices”.

And instead of making a really really good DTP programm to strengthen their relationship to regular customers, they tried (and poorly failed) to produce a “all-around-software” which can do everything “a little”.

I used Quark 7 for half an year and it cost me around 5000$, cause of wasted time.

I was a real quark-fan, and working with version 4.5 of xpress (which was the best at all) was effective, fast and good to handle, but version 7 destroyed all my loyality.

and about your “comparison”: go to a advertising-agency which does “day-work” (Flyers, Posters, ad-letters, stuff like that) and ask them for their programs of choice… don’t look at the “great quark-tools” look at the programm in use. Indesign will be the ultimate winner because of it’s absolutly fluent CS-integration, PostScript-friendlyness and it’s fast way of working.

(please excuse my bad english, I’m from Germany)

Time of Entry: 2008 02 19 UT - by myself

came from quark newsletter too
have the same prob. as RV
slightly disappointing…

Time of Entry: 2008 02 19 UT - by Jane Kailey

Excellent report, Devox! You really hit it!

Time of Entry: 2008 02 19 UT - by Erik Vlietinck

by myself… The name and email you left behind by itself are already omens of your “good intentions”.

Slightly disappointing? I’ll tell you what slightly disappointing is: that until now one (that’s 1) reader has found those 12 Euros for a whole year’s worth of reports low enough to go for it. Remember, I’m charging this to make sure I’m not once again confronted with plagiarism.

That none of the other “highly interested” ones seem to find that 1 Euro per month is way too much, is what I expected. After all, isn’t the Internet all about “free”?

Well, let me tell you this: there ain’t such a thing as a free lunch. The free stuff you’re hunting down for 95% is a lot of crap. But if that is what you prefer, by all means, go for it.

Oh, by the way, that one visitor who found the 12 Euros low enough, e-mailed me an hour after his download and wrote: “downloading the qxp/id report already made it worth to subscribe.”.

Now that is a comment that I take at heart --not your whining and complaining about a fee that’s so low it will hardly buy you a gallon of gasoline these days!