Quark Memorial Service

[oxburger]

Did I miss the QuarkXpress memorial service when it was removed from the category list? Anyways, so long Quark, say hi to Pagemaker for me.

 

[Al Ferrari]

We know Quark has shortcomings, but do you really prefer having a single layout application in the market?

Al

 

[Cory Smith]

If you aren't innovating, you are dying. Quark just sat back and watched Adobe eat their lunch. It would feel different if quark had treated their customers better back in the day, but they didn't and the majority were happy to tell them to go take a hike.

Are things better with a single app in the market?
For most shops, I would say yes, indesign has some issues but it beats supporting two platforms in regards to training/troubleshooting and upgrades. If it wasn't for Adobe we would still be building all transparency effects in photoshop and saving flattened tifs <shudder, hated those days>.

Quark had their opportunities but were asleep at the wheel (literally)

 

[Al Ferrari]

I also prefer InDesign and I don't disagree with how the current situation came to be, but I would encourage rather than discourage any competing application.

Al

 

[chevalier]

We know Quark has shortcomings, but do you really prefer having a single layout application in the market?

Al

If the only realistic alternative is Quark or a Quarklike application. Yes. HELL YES.

 

[Werby]

Totally agree with Cory about how Quark blew it in terms of functionality and they were a nightmare to deal with for support, so in that sense I'm glad Adobe kicked their butt. However, has anyone noticed that you can't move as fast in InDesign? Selecting things and moving around in the document and actually getting LAYOUT done was actually easier and quicker in Quark? Maybe I just moved faster as a younger man, but I could fly through layout and prepress chores in seconds that now take minutes. Or is it just me?

 

[OutSourceD]

Way back in 1992 when Hurricane Andrew hit Homestead, FL. I heard a story of an individual, a graphic designer, who's entire home and worldly possessions were literally blown away. He called Adobe who had his serial numbers on file, took pity on him and sent him new install disks of this lost Adobe programs, free of charge. He called Quark gave them the same sob story and they had his serial numbers on file, but pretty much told him where he could stick it. That's one very good reason why Quark is where they are today. They didn't care about their customers. I remember being treated as an annoyance on more than one occasion.

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

@Werby comparing layout depends on what you want to do. A layout today is usually more complicated. Possibilities give rise to new demands. It is possible to make layouts very efficiently in InDesign as long as you sit and plan beforehand. The kind of layout that can be automated or semiautomated by good use of styles, templates etc… I just love completing good grind and watch layouts snap to place, and then the GREP formating taking care of patterns so that I don't need to worry about just in time fixes messing things up. You'd have to pay me extra for me to go back

 

[RUsure]

Yay, verily . . .

Yay, verily . . .

@Werby comparing layout depends on what you want to do. A layout today is usually more complicated. Possibilities give rise to new demands. It is possible to make layouts very efficiently in InDesign as long as you sit and plan beforehand. The kind of layout that can be automated or semiautomated by good use of styles, templates etc… I just love completing good grind and watch layouts snap to place, and then the GREP formating taking care of patterns so that I don't need to worry about just in time fixes messing things up. You'd have to pay me extra for me to go back

. . . the "grind" is reward in, and of, itself. Having the toolset known as "Adobe Creative Suite" at one's disposal is life-affirming.
It was great being able to do great work in PageMaker, Quark & InDesign - not having to provide the "just in time voodoo" is nice . . .

 

[JaimeZ]

Quark is still difficult to deal with. I upgraded my two Macs to Snow Leopard in August 2011. I had two licenses for Quark, but could only find one. Quark would not give me the time of day to get the other license, so I upgraded only one--they lost one upgrade sale. I just have one Mac with Quark and both have Adobe CS5.5--Adobe allowed me to upgrade both using licenses I had acquired through their now discontinued Provider Program (one CS3 and the other CS4).

Anyway, I don't get too many Quark files anymore, while I get many Indesign files.

Quark--R.I.P.

 

[pgm4925]

We know Quark has shortcomings, but do you really prefer having a single layout application in the market?

Al

Certainly there should be competition. Markzware is trying to do our small part. We have started a beta test program for converting pdf files to Quark (pdf2quark). If you would like to beta test it and provide us feedback, please email - doug [at] markzware [dot] com.

 

[Happyprinter]

We used Quark for years and were very happy, then, I believe it was the release of Quark 7. Tech support was horrible, Quark basically told us to take a flying leap when it came to resolving any issues. Couldn't understand any of the tech support people very well. Switched to adobe and have never looked back.

 

[almaink]

Certainly there should be competition. Markzware is trying to do our small part. We have started a beta test program for converting pdf files to Quark (pdf2quark). If you would like to beta test it and provide us feedback, please email - doug [at] markzware [dot] com.

Who would want a PDF to Quark application? Didn't you read the rest of this thread? Quark is dead. Maybe a Quark to PDF without the need for the Quark application is what you should be working on.

 

[vniehaus]

Wow I come back to prepress two years later and find this out. Wonderful News. Well I gotta go hang plates and makeready now.

 

[John W]

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.

 

[jricart]

What can I say.... I HATE QUARK!

R.I.P.

 

[dabob]

PageMaker, Quark, InDesign - have used them all and to quote a line from Quigley Down Under . . . . "I said I didn't have much use for one. Didn't say I didn't know how to use it." -

I change it to . . . I said I didn't have much use for Quark. Didn't say I didn't know how to use it.

Long Live InDesign!!!!

 

[John W]

I'd be willing to wager that no one has taught you how to use Quark properly. Here's a little test to see if I am correct.
1. How do you change the size of any Quark box, on center, without using the measurements palette and in 4 keystrokes in 20 seconds?
2. Can you build a series of equal picture boxes horizontally across a page in 30 seconds with a 2pt gap between them?

 

[dabob]

John . . . yes to both

 

[John W]

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