Quark Memorial Service

[Joe Duffy]

Okay then. What about Quark libraries? How many people use them. Does Ind have the same?

and
IMHO, you guys are Nuts to bad mouth apps; there are things I prefer in InDesign too but dumping on Qxp is a sign you really don't understand that needs vary for different types of work.

seems as if maybe you follow your own thought... if you don't know, then ask.
IN has libraries and both have a spot.

Used quark for years, love it - still have Quark shortcuts for IN because I know them..... still use IN becuse of pdf.

 

[Cory Smith]

We still use Quark everyday and InDesign only when we choose to!
1. Multiple changes cause you to slow down more & more in an Indd but accelerate in Qxp. (see online tests done years ago)
2. The rest of the world still uses Quark and actually uses it more than Ind so please check your facts B4 spouting.
3. Ind is terrible for charts (eg: car brochure data pages) for multiple changes, Q is Not!
4. Quark libraries are awesome to build with (a press layout with annotations in nine minutes! Ind takes me 2-3 times longer - and it's not just my skill level)

IMHO, you guys are Nuts to bad mouth apps; there are things I prefer in InDesign too but dumping on Qxp is a sign you really don't understand that needs vary for different types of work.

The Quark/Indesign thing is much like the mac/pc. It's individual choice and what you know best. If you focus all your energy learning quark, sure you will be more efficient in it. Same with Indesign. Each program will have strengths and weaknesses.


End of the day, we are all pretty much tied to whatever program our customers use, and 99% of that is indesign.

 

[John W]

Yeah, in North America. Not elsewhere though.
But I get your point and you seem to agree that badmouthing is the worst way to say you like something!

 

[DCurry]

Not only does ID have libraries, it also has snippets.

 

[yourdesigns]

I was done with Quark when I upgraded to 7.xxx and could no longer print to our Konica 6500. Haven't regretted it yet.

 

[SlaveToTheMan]

Yeah, in North America. Not elsewhere though.
But I get your point and you seem to agree that badmouthing is the worst way to say you like something!

Much like Cory said directly above the post I'm quoting - we're only responding to what we receive from clients. We just upgraded all of our Mac stations and while all of them will get Adobe Suite updates to the newest version, there's only one copy of Quark 9 on order. We just don't see as many Quark jobs as years past.

Not sure why people are taking this thread all personally, it's partly in jest & even if it's not - so what? All of these applications are simply tools to accomplish a set of tasks. I don't have any emotional ties to them, but if some people do, maybe a Valentine's Day romantic dinner with your software of choice is in order! (Or, is that a North American only Holiday & shouldn't be discussed either? I'm so confused.)

 

[dabob]

InDesign has libraries too . . . it seems you don't know InDesign as well as I know quark

Quark is a workman like product but compared to InDesign you are comparing a Chevy to a Rolls Royce . . .

Just look at the trend of the comments on this thread and in my experience in the last couple of years InDesign files out number Quark at least 500 to 1 at my shop. I get quark files from one artist at one company but the rest of the artists would rather quit than change to quark

Just my two cents

 

[Helmet_of_Poe]

I don't think we owe Quark respect any more than any other brand in the marketplace. If a manufacturer doesn't keep up with marketplace demands, the buying public will choose a better product. This is subjective, of course, but it seems there is a consensus here; Quark has fallen behind InDesign. Way behind.

I look at Quark through a production lens, and it just doesn't compare. Using v9 last week to prep print files (for a customer who is a diehard Quark loyalist) felt like stepping into a DeLorean and traveling back to 2002.

Biggest Quark shortcomings (for me):
1) Crappy in-app previews. Even the high-res preview that Quark does produce is barely adequate. I'm not looking for color fidelity here, just something that looks a bit cleaner than what Aldus Pagemaker would produce. Some of us need to preview dielines and such, with accuracy.
2) No separations preview. Seriously?? The Quark apologist's answer is to make a PDF and preview the seps in Acrobat. Yeah, I already know that all of the Adobe apps provide this vital function, but thanks for reminding me.
3) Quark's "Picture Usage" vs. InDesign's "Links" palette. This is far more subjective, but I find the "Links" palette much more useful. Firstly, it's a floating palette, so the layout can be modified while viewing critical info about each link and then manipulating them if need be. Quark's "Picture Usage", being an active foreground dialog box, won't allow modifications to the layout while viewing each link's properties. Plus, I really appreciate the ability in InDesign to update a single link in a document without updating every other iteration of that link.

While there are others, these are Quark's major shortcomings, and there appears to be only one solution. Let's close the casket and put 'er in the ground. Oh, and is this a Baptist service? If so, pass the bean casserole, please.

 

[DCurry]

For me, one of ID's most helpful features is the Flattener Preview. It's invaluable to be able to see at a glance all objects that contain transparency, and how those objects will affect nearby objects. Quark just doesn't have this (unless they added it to 9), so it's a little like flying blind.

Even though I have a modern APPE workflow, I still like to know what's happening as far as transparencies go, so I can change stacking order as needed to head off problems early.

 

[Mark]

I like Quark and only had trouble with Quark 7, and maybe 5?, but we use what our customers send and ID is certainly the king of the hill today.
They should have tried to get Freehand when it was up for grabs and made their own suite like Adobe.
Their customer service was crap in the past, but so was Apples at one time and look at them today.

 

[Mark]

That was annoying (we also have the 6500) but was fixed in 8.

 

[naplajoie2000]

Badmouth Quark! I have worked prep for 20 yrs, and Q4 was the last version that was worth a damn. As I deal with client files and do not design, I have seen every version of InDesign since its beginning. We laughed when they tried to tell us ID was going to take over Quarks place at the top. ID 1.0 was terrible, and ID 2.0 wasn't much better. Then the CS suite started and then we saw the difference. Updating images, dealing with transparency, exporting pdf files, all became much simpler, and more reliable. Every version of Quark since 5 has been a headache for prep guys. I have worked in Rampage and Esko environments, and Adobe apps just work better for our purposes. We deal with every major agency, and they have all transitioned to Adobe. So to say that the rest of the world is using Quark is just wrong. And for car brochure data, we print for many car makers, and they all use Adobe...and love it. We have 1 client that still uses Quark, and that client apologizes every year they send us files with it.

So, IMHO, you are the one that probably should step into the 21st century and get on board the train, before getting run over by the printer who starts charging you a penalty for just thinking of using Quark.

 

[Sev]

I have worked with Quark since version 3.32. Since we were also getting PageMaker files, Quark looked pretty good. This and using our RIP50 on our Lino 330. Then came the release of Quark 4. We did the upgrade to version 4, and found it to be a huge improvement over 3.32. However, many people on the Quark forums found version 4 to be buggy. We had no problems, and I was very vocal on how much we liked version 4. Because of that, Quark contacted me and wanted to use me and the company I work with, as a testimonial for Quark 4, on the Quark website. I was proud and thrilled, to say the least. Then Quark called me up, and wanted to do an interview for an ad for Quark 4, in Macworld Magazine. Quark had me featured in a 2 page ad. Of course when Quark 5 was released, we jumped right to the upgrade. A couple of our customers started to use InDesign, and we had to turn down those jobs. Soon we realized we were going to have to get InDesign (version 1.5). I hated using it, and many jobs were not working properly, and not output film properly. The upgrade to version 2 wasnt much better. But we were slowly getting more and more InDesign files. We still laughed when Adobe said InDesign was going to be the Quark killer. We upgraded to Quark version 6.5, and kept laughing, until Adobe came out with CS. All of a sudden, InDesign didnt look so bad. We started getting fewer and fewer Quark files. By the time CS3 was around, Quark was all but gone in our shop. We are still only up to Quark 6.5, and that is as far as we will go with Quark. With CS5, most of our customers have upgraded to CS5. We have only one customer left who uses Quark, so we ask for PDF files. Lets face it, Adobe made Quark who they were, because of PageMaker, and Adobe has made Quark who they are today, with InDesign, and the CS suite.
That's my 2.5 cents worth.

-Sev

 

[Al Ferrari]

"Lets face it, Adobe made Quark who they were, because of PageMaker,"

If you mean that PageMaker's performance made Quark look very good, you should be thanking Aldous. Adobe did not acquire it till much later on.

Al

 

[Sev]

"Lets face it, Adobe made Quark who they were, because of PageMaker,"

If you mean that PageMaker's performance made Quark look very good, you should be thanking Aldous. Adobe did not acquire it till much later on.

Al

Al, you are correct with that. We never used Aldus PageMaker, I believe we started with Adobe PageMaker 6.0, if I recall. I looked at our software collection today, and could not come up with any older versions of PageMaker, and my memory is not as good as it used be.

-Sev

 

[JoeatData]

Quark--R.I.P.

How long has Quark 9 been on the market? We're at version 8.51. Haven't had the need to upgrade.

 

[MacTwidget]

How long has Quark 9 been on the market? We're at version 8.51. Haven't had the need to upgrade.

I always try to have at least one copy of the latest and greatest. Because if I don't, Murphy's Law will kick in and a customer will send in a file that I do not have the software for!

I bought a copy of Quack 9 as soon as it was shipping in April 2011. I have had exactly ONE file from a customer in Quack 9.

 

[Tpyo]

It seems to me a rather obvious issue is being ignored here, so far. Indesign, being a part of Creative Suite, works so well with the other Adobe products within CS. Personally, I tend to treat 'AcroIllyIndy' as one program. I haven't really used Quark since vers. 7. Does it play well with Acrobat and Illustrator? And is it worth the cost to buy each separately?

 

[GaragePunk]

What do you mean, there is Excel, Word and Punisher to contend with.

 

[Slammer]

Hey guys I have used Quark since it was still called Ventura publisher.