QuarkXPress 7: Early Returns From Two Experts

The first impressions of QuarkXPress are in, and they’re already mixed.

QuarkXPress 7 is fi­nal­ly re­leased in­to the wild, and the de­sign com­mu­ni­ty has fi­nal­ly be­gun to exhale. 

While not nec­es­sar­i­ly rep­re­sen­ta­tive of the cre­ative re­ac­tion to fol­low, two ear­ly opin­ions are no­table due to thi­er sources and what they say. Sandee Cohen and Galen Gruman are two names who should re­quire no ex­pla­na­tion; both are ac­knowl­edged lay­out ap­pli­ca­tion ex­perts with deep ex­pe­ri­ence (and pub­lished how-to books) about how to use InDesign (in Sandee’s case) and QuarkXPress (in Galen’s). Each professional’s re­ac­tion is as dif­fer­ent as it is unexpected.

Sandee Cohen: Impressed by XPress 7

Sandee’s re­ac­tion is over­all very pos­i­tive: her ini­tial im­pres­sions, pub­lished here at CreativePro​.com, see the im­prov­ments (Composition Zones, trans­paren­cy con­trol, Job Jackets) time­ly and promis­ing, and some­thing that will keep Quark in the game (though she does agree that XPress is no longer the king of the mountain):

Will QuarkXPress re­gain its over­whelm­ing dom­i­nance of the page-layout mar­ket? I think those days are over. Too many com­pa­nies have al­ready switched to InDesign. I don’t be­lieve a com­pa­ny that switched to InDesign will switch again to QuarkXPress 7. There are just too many con­sid­er­a­tions and com­pli­ca­tions. And it’s not just InDesign’s own fea­tures that have made it at­trac­tive; it’s the in­te­gra­tion be­tween all the Creative Suite products.

But will QuarkXPress whith­er and blow away? Absolutely not!

Galen Gruman: We Waited For This?

Galen Gruman’s re­ac­tion (read­able here at Macworld), how­ev­er, seems as un­der­whelmed as Sandee Cohen’s was upbeat.

Taking a look at the same im­prov­ments that Sandee did he found them, while need­ed, unim­pres­sive and large­ly coun­ter­in­tu­itve. Job Jackets anc Composition Zones are good fea­tures but of lim­it­ed ap­peal and, at best, coun­ter­in­tu­itve­ly im­ple­ment­ed. Most of the rest of the new fea­tures are “me-too” im­prov­ments match­ing InDesign’s func­tion­al­i­ty, though trans­paren­cy did get high marks for be­ing bet­ter than InDesign’s.

Overall, it didn’t seem worth the wait. As Gruman him­self says in his review:

Unfortunately, XPress 7 does not rep­re­sent a sig­nif­i­cant leap for­ward. The new re­lease com­bines pri­mar­i­ly me-too ad­di­tions with some still-evolving orig­i­nal fea­tures that have lim­it­ed ap­peal for Quark”™s broad base of print de­sign­ers. Most of QuarkXPress 7″™s tru­ly new fea­tures tar­get work­groups, mak­ing col­lab­o­ra­tion easier.

However, that choice will like­ly dis­ap­point many rank-and-file de­sign­ers, es­pe­cial­ly if they”™re at small­er firms that don”™t work in large teams. 

Two ac­knowl­edged ex­perts. One cel­e­brat­ed work­horse ap­pli­ca­tion. Two dif­fer­ing opin­ions. Let the re­views commence!

QuarkXPress 7, re­views, analysis

You may also like...

49 Responses

  1. woz says:

    I would agree with Sandee Cohen. Once you switch your stu­dio to InDesign there’s no go­ing back even if you want­ed to. There’s sim­ply no way for Xpress to open the InDesign files. (Except for Markzware’s plu­g­in, but it’s not pre­fect and com­pat­i­ble with the lat­est ver­sions of InDesign and/or Xpress).

  2. Good point, woz.

    BTW, I want to point out that I was tipped off to Sandee’s colum by woz, who made a link in the last one of the last com­ments he made her. Tip ‘o’ the cap to you, woz; good call.

  3. woz says:

    No problem.Happy could con­tribute some­thing usefull.

  4. Aris Batsioulas says:

    Does “trans­paren­cy” in QXP7 mean just “opac­i­ty”? I have been look­ing for blend­ing modes but see noth­ing. How can one cope with the ab­sence of Multiply?

  5. When peo­ple speak of ‘trasparen­cy’ in XPress 7 they are in­deed talk­ing about what the ap­pli­ca­tions calls “Opacity”

    There is a re­al rea­son why XPress 7 does not in­clude Multply as a blend­ing op­tion but it’s a bit be­yond my ken to ex­plain why.

  6. Damo says:

    I think if Quark con­tin­ues to get “bagged” by de­sign­ers, pub­lish­ers and print hous­es in favour of the sin­gle user in­ter­face that Creative Suite prod­ucts of­fer the DTP in­dus­try will with­in 5 years be look­ing at an Adobe monopoly. 

    The day (if God for­bid it should hap­pen) Adobe drove Quark in­to the grave would be the day they will charge us what­ev­er they like and of­fer de­creased prod­uct sup­port in keep­ing with the lack of com­pe­ti­tion with­in the DTP marketplace.

    I find it amus­ing to see so many peo­ple in the in­dus­try who on­ly seem to know the Adobe user in­ter­face with its var­i­ous tool­bar and palette con­gest­ed ap­pli­ca­tions. If con­front­ed with a work­place that us­es Quark they are like ducks out of wa­ter. I was taught a long time ago its best to learn all rel­e­vant soft­ware “just in case” you ever work in a stu­dio that favours one or the other.

    Meanwhile what does the fu­ture of DTP hold for us? Microsoft (that gi­ant com­pa­ny) has had 2 rum­blings this year that may turn in­to tidal waves. Microsoft in­tends to re­lease it own ver­sion of pdf called metro and its own ver­sion of jpeg. Apparently metro will ad­vance the Office suite and Publisher to the next lev­el… mak­ing them print ready. Would any­one ever be naive enough to be­lieve Microsoft would stand idle while Adobe took a stran­gle­hold on the graph­ics in­dus­try with its pdf workflow.

    Microsoft the next big play­er in DTP and graph­ics file for­mats? Get ready coz its coming.

  7. A time ago I wrote to Quark’s wish­list that they should give Quark 7 for free to all re­main­ing users and come up as­ap with Quark 8 , with all the fea­tures of IDCS2 and the ex­pect­ed fea­tures of IDCS3 al­ready in­clud­ed. With that Quark would have an ap­pli­ca­tion worth to pay for. As a con­vert to ID this is still my opinion.

  8. woz says:

    The way I un­der­stand it, blend­ing modes are not pos­si­ble in Xpress 7. It’s just the transparan­cy, ehm opacity.

  9. Seigmar:

    I guess the “new, friend­ly Quark” doesn’t ex­tend that far, neh?

    Seriously, I’ve not­ed the var­i­ous strate­gies that Quark has im­ple­ment­ed to get 4.x users on board, and as a 6.5 own­er I feel like we’re just ex­pect­ed to up­grade with­out get­ting an incentive.

    They seem more con­cerned with get­ting the lag­gards to play catchup than to keep faith­ful cus­tomers cur­rent. I’m not say­ing they should give away the store, but I think it’s rather un­fair not to give the faith­ful at least some­thing for be­ing faithful.

  10. swiss says:

    Quark 7 looks nice on first sight but I re­al­ly ex­pect­ed more … much more of it. I am look­ing for­ward to InDesign CS3 to kick XPresss’ 7 pASS­port. The on­ly re­al­ly cool thing is that you can make a gra­di­ent from a col­or to trans­paren­cy (I do miss such a func­tion in Indd)…

  11. woz says:

    Blend your col­or to white and set transparan­cy to mul­ti­ply doesn’t do the trick for you?

  12. swiss says:

    nope … at least not when there is an im­age be­hind the gradient ….

  13. Pj says:

    I’m just cu­ri­ous if any of you are fa­mil­iar with the print­ing seps and the use of trans­paren­cies? What you see isn’t al­ways what you get. It’s great if you want to use it for the web, but when it comes to print­ing and send­ing a file thru a RIP… good luck with us­ing white at 0 trans. :)

  14. Ted Moon says:

    I have up­dat­ed to Quark 7 tonight and did a cur­so­ry tour of the pro­gram, so be aware of this when reading.

    I ab­solute­ly agree that shar­ing and oth­er col­lab­o­ra­tive func­tions found in the new ver­sion of Quark is at­trac­tive, but use­less for most small de­sign­ers. And the fea­tures that Quark im­ple­ment­ed was to “catch-up” with Adobe’s InDesign. However, this is not why I am ex­cit­ed about Quark 7. It is be­cause Quark fi­nal­ly caught up with InDesign, sort of.
    Because I use Quark at work, I am forced to use use and mas­ter it. Personally, i use Adobe’s InDesign. Why switch? be­cause there are two fac­tions of desk­top pro­grams, it is safe to learn and use both. In the end, it’s about us­ing what the client wants and what the print ven­dor can out­put. So yes, pdf im­prove­ments, lay­out im­prove­ments, font im­prove­ments, re­al­ly I’m talk­ing back to ba­sics and more im­por­tant­ly, it’s about mak­ing mon­ey. So there should no ar­gu­ment about which is bet­ter, InDesign “pushed” their way in the mar­ket and will not go away. Fine, learn it, use it, charge more for it. In the end, isn’t that what de­sign all about? Communicate and show me the money.

  15. swiss says:

    who cares about the de­sign­ers pref­er­ences when it comes to data­base dri­ven ap­pli­ca­tion such as brand man­age­ment systems?
    there is some de­vel­op­ers that NEED to find out which one of the two is more suit­able for they app and which of the two is worth the risk when think­ing of the fu­ture. and when you fi­nal­ly find out that it is much faster and thus cheap­er to pro­duce pages in this or that app that you have your mon­ey as­pect. I do not know what cumulus+quark will bring up but I know that there are quite a few sexy InDesign+InCopy database-apps around …

  16. tim says:

    Ted, why would you charge your clients more for us­ing InDesign? It’s not about what soft­ware you use to get the job done. It’s about the end prod­uct! If you charge more just to do some­thing in InDesign you are dig­ging your­self a cor­po­rate grave.

  17. Ted Moon says:

    I am not say­ing to charge more be­cause the de­sign­er us­es InDesign. I am say­ing that be­cause de­sign­ers now have to learn both pro­grams, this in­creas­es costs for both the de­sign­er and the client. If I have to learn both pro­grams, buy both pro­grams, then I have to make sure I can re­coup my costs and in­vest­ment in time. Obviously this might not hold in the free mar­ket, but isn’t every­one tired of los­ing projects just be­cuase they don’t know one or the oth­er program?
    Perhaps I was be­ing too lit­er­al in my last posting.
    I ap­pre­ci­ate both pro­grams equal­ly but now I must keep up with both of them as well so I can in turn, hold my val­ue to both clients, and to the com­pa­ny I work for.

  18. woz says:

    Most de­sign­ers at my com­pa­ny de­sign us­ing a pen­cil and a mark­er. After that they cre­ate ‘presentation-ready’ art­work in Illustrator and or InDesign. Me and my col­legues will take care of the rest. We’ll take over with the fi­nal text, pi­cures and de­tails. In the end we’ll cre­ate the prop­er cer­ti­fied PDF’s. We talk the printer-lingo. They can fo­cus on the de­sign and art­work, and I wil fo­cus the tec­ni­cal part of the job. (If ness­esary, they’re just one door away). So far, Illustrator and InDesign makes it far more eas­i­er for them to re­alise your ideas. Both the de­sign­ers and the DTP-ers dreadded the change from Xpress at first, but now? If they can’t use InDesign and or Illustrator they get mad. Really…

  19. woz says:

    By the way:
    “nope … at least not when there is an im­age be­hind the gra­di­ent â€¦.”
    There’s noth­ing wrong with an im­age be­hind a transparant gra­di­ant. Don’t know how or where you got that idea? Problems can hap­pen with spot­col­ors and transparay be­cause some peo­ple use blend-effects com­bined with the spot­col­ors and that’s not ‘a good idea’. (un­der­state­ment).

  20. canty says:

    i am a pro pho­tog­ra­ph­er and use the cs2 cre­ative suite and have tryed to use quark, but still like in­de­sign be­cause you can use all the same short cut keys,drag and drop .ai and PSD files and donet have to cre­ate eps files
    in­de­sign rocks!

  21. damo says:

    In Design is aimed at peo­ple who like one user in­ter­face. ie – the sim­ple. Its not about whether that user in­ter­face is the most speed ef­fi­cient or ap­pro­pri­ate for that soft­ware. Its just that every­thing is right where you ex­pect it to be in the “Adobe World”. When you open your Adobe prod­uct your pulse slows and your heart stops pound­ing… the stress leaves you… ah­hh every­thing is right where it should be… no­body messed with your per­fect Adobe world. The fact that you are buy­ing 3 pro­grams which run the same user in­ter­face which btw al­so share a mul­ti­tude of oth­er fea­tures… as a bun­dled pack­age seems to slip your mind. Wow. thats awe­some! What great val­ue for mon­ey!! (are you serious?)

    Meanwhile the com­pa­ny Adobe is full steam ahead with anti-competition buy­outs of its op­po­si­tion like Macromedia. Ignorant peo­ple bury their heads in the sand not know­ing the true cost of al­low­ing any one com­pa­ny to mono­plise an industry. 

    If you rel­ish a sin­gle graph­ics soft­ware user in­ter­face so much per­haps you will al­so rel­ish the mo­nop­oly adobe will have soon and rel­ish the free reign they will have over price and qual­i­ty of ser­vice / sup­port once that hap­pens? The fact is Adobe was forced in­to its cur­rent po­si­tion by com­pe­ti­tion. But once the com­pe­ti­tion is gone… 

    Do you se­ri­ous­ly think they would not raise prices the mo­ment they have the mar­ket­place to them­selves? Do you think bun­dled prod­ucts would re­main bun­dled in a non-competitive in­dus­try? Have you ever known qual­i­ty and cus­tomer sup­port to in­crease dur­ing a monopoly?

  22. Tony Morse says:

    I fail to see the point you’re mak­ing. Are you sug­gest­ing that we should use Quark 7 sole­ly so Adobe doesn’t end up with a mo­nop­oly on the busi­ness? Sorry, I’ll con­tin­ue to choose the soft­ware I use based on ease of use and qual­i­ty of features.

  23. damo says:

    Use both is what I’m say­ing ob­vi­ous­ly. Unfortunately this site is an al­tar at which on In Design is wor­shipped as though that prod­uct has no short comings. 

    I am for­tu­nate enough to know all the rel­e­vant print graph­ics soft­ware. CS2, Freehand, Quark etc. Unfortunately most ed­u­ca­tion­al in­sti­tu­tions are now pre­dom­i­nant­ly on­ly teach­ing Adobe. That will with­out a doubt lead to a sole­ly Adobe pur­chas­ing com­mu­ni­ty of young print de­sign­ers and users with­in 3 years.

    Sites like this with its strong em­pha­sis on Adobe are in no way help­ing to avoid a mo­nop­oly out­come. Actually I find the name of this site to be a lie. As fre­quent­ly what is be­ing com­pared is not Quark and In Design but Quark and CS. A bun­dle of graph­ics prod­ucts which we all know Quark is not go­ing to be ca­pa­ble of producing.

    You should come clean and call this site Quark bash­ing by CS users.

  24. woz says:

    Haha. Everything you say ‘might hap­pen’ has al­ready hap­pend­ed. Exept not with Adobe but with Quark Inc. And we should re­ward them for it by giv­ing them our mon­ey for their ‘catch-up’ ‘one tick pony’? For ex­am­le: There is no re­al com­petion for Photoshop. In your view Adobe must stop de­vel­op­ment be­cause there’s no com­pe­ti­tion, right? Well just look­ing at Photoshop the last years will show you the prod­uct con­tineus to grow with use­full fea­tures. Oh and the last thing I want is a ‘one pro­gram that can do pix­els, lay­out and il­lus­tra­tion’. Dear God, let’s keep things seper­at­ed o.k.? And I don’t think it’s Pariah’s fault there’s so much new stuff go­ing on at Adobe and not much re­al news at Quark.

  25. woz says:

    By the way, if this site is so pro-adobe why haven’t I read the ‘This is your brain on InDesign ar­ti­cle here’?
    (Origionally post­ed in the Adobe forum)
    1) InDesign is cool; use InDesign.
    2) If you do not use InDesign, you are not cool. Be cool, use InDesign.
    3) The fur­ther ex­is­tence of the hu­man race de­pends on InDesign; use InDesign.
    4) I like InDesign. You should like InDesign too. No cre­ative out­put can be made with­out InDesign. Use InDesign.
    5) Without InDesign the earth as we know it will cease to ex­ist. Use InDesign.
    6)Nobody doesn’t like InDesign. Use InDesign.
    7) I am a veg­etable. Even veg­eta­bles use InDesign. Use InDesign.
    8) The spir­tu­al cen­ters of all ma­jor re­li­gions and about a dozen mi­nor re­li­gions agree that InDesign is pleas­ing to their diety/god (even Mighty Cthulhu). Use InDesign.
    9) InDesign does not cause flat­u­lence. Use InDesign.
    10) Four out of five den­tists rec­om­mend InDesign. Use InDesign.
    11) Osama Bin Laden does not use InDesign. Use InDesign.
    12) InDesign pairs well with any food. Use InDesign.
    13) InDesign has twice (2x) the stain fight­ing ac­tion of the lead­ing na­tion­al brand. Use InDesign.
    14) InDesign has the abil­i­ty to beat the s*** out of your dad. Use InDesign.
    15) InDesign will pull your fin­ger. Use InDesign.
    16) InDesign will not stain most fab­rics. Use InDesign.
    17) InDesign works bet­ter with the ladies than Barry White. Use InDesign.
    18) InDesign is less fill­ing and tastes great. Use InDesign.
    19) InDesign was giv­en to hu­man­i­ty by the aliens that crashed near Roswell. Use InDesign.
    20) InDesign. Use InDesign. Please.

  26. Chris says:

    I use both InDesign and Xpress from their be­gin­nings. I have nev­er changed be­tween them due to fea­tures. I switch be­tween them when I run in­to bugs. For me that’s the ul­ti­mate killer fea­ture – No Bugs. InDesign 2.02 had se­ri­ous bugs inthe PDF gen­er­a­tion. X4.11 had bugs too. I just up­grad­ed both, IDCS2 for $169 and X7 for $249. Interesting that X7 still costs more. Adobe is a very eth­i­cal com­pa­ny. They have had ma­hor mar­ket share in many ar­eas for years, and their pric­ing is al­ways fair. Even if Quark dies, Adobe will not chage their prices much. They can’t, the mar­ket won’t al­low that. People just won’t buy the up­grades. Ask Microsoft about that, they have 99% mar­ket share with Windows, but when they try to charge too much peo­ple don’t buy. Competition or mar­ket will­ing­ness to pay, both ac­com­plish the same thing. Adobe has had ma­jor prob­lems get­ting ex­isit­ng cus­tomers to keep buy­ing up­grades. Most soft­ware ends up com­pet­ing against it’s old­er ver­sions far more than oth­er brands.

  27. woz says:

    Good point. Adobe saw what hap­pened to Quark. Overhere in Europe they now ad­ver­tise with ‘the most im­por­tant up­date since 3.3’. Wow, why did I buy 4, 5 and 6?

  28. Woz: That list is hi­lar­i­ous. Made my day.

  29. TIm says:

    Never choose to have on­ly one choice.

  30. B says:

    I agree with one of the above posters that Adobe is cheat­ing users by bundling soft­ware that con­tain the same or ex­treme­ly sim­i­lar fea­tures and call­ing them seper­ate prod­ucts. I don’t re­al­ly think of it as im­moral use of pow­er, more of the idea that there is still the op­tion to buy each pro­gram seper­ate­ly, why spend more mon­ey and alien­ate more users that­to make an all-in-one ap­pli­ca­tion? How would it alien­tate? Some peo­ple want Photoshop and are scared of Illustrator… If they were crammed to­geth­er in an ob­voious fash­ion, some new users wouldn’t buy it. (I beleive in time, this will not be the case and Adobe will of­fer a lim­it­ed all-in-one app, how­ev­er there needs to be more mod­u­la­tion be­tween the Macromedia takeover and Adobe’s own lim­it­ed up­grade features).

    As far as which one I pre­fer, not that it matters- I use both. Which ever one al­lows me not just to get the job done, but to get the job done faster and with less wor­ry… That’s the one I’ll use. I give a rat’s @$$ about how pret­ty some­thing is. Give me the func­tion­al­i­ty to make what I need hap­pen, happen.

  31. woz says:

    “Give me the func­tion­al­i­ty to make what I need hap­pen, hap­pen.” True. Bot of­ten peo­ple don’t know what they want un­til they see it. PSD im­port, transparan­cy, layer-effects, PDF, Open Type sup­port, etc. You would have to agree that all this comes from Adobe’s kitchen. Not Quarks. They did noth­ing to push pro­duc­tiv­i­ty. Just col­lect cash…

  32. Peter says:


    whoc cares who in­vent­ed it?
    Do you dri­ve a car? Which model?
    Wheels = Egyptians; Car & Engine = Germans.

    And box­es, pt lead­ing, multi-ink col­ors etc. (in page lay­out apps) = Quark. 


    The bet­ter one makes the show.


  33. Kevin Newell says:

    I think it is sil­ly to think that Adobe would raise it’s prices once it dom­i­nates the mar­ket. They dom­i­nate the vec­tor graph­ics mar­ket with Illustrator now that Freehand is all but gone. They didn’t hike up the price for Illustrator. Photoshop has al­ways been the raster ma­nip­u­la­tion, and pho­to edit­ing stan­dard it is still very fair­ly priced. They own the .pdf mar­ket place and Acrobat is still rea­son­able as well and Reader be­ing free.

    Adobe is a good com­pa­ny, and just be­cuase there is no di­rect com­pe­ti­tion doesn’t mean they be­come an evil em­pire. They have and all ways will be a fair soft­ware coma­pa­ny. Microsoft is al­ways go­ing to be there and even if it wasn;t I feel they would stay fair.

    Adobe CS is at­trac­tive, and prived to com­pete with just Xpress. Offering top to bot­tom graph­ics, lay­out, and print­ing so­lu­tions. To be in the same price range with all of that vs. Quarks Layout app just goes to show you that Adobe is good people.

  34. damo says:

    Vector graph­ics is hard­ly a mo­nop­oly. You’re waaaay off track right there. 

    Furthermore any­one who thinks In Design will stay same price of cheap­er af­ter Quark is gone “be­cause the mar­ket won’t al­low it” lacks ba­sic eco­nom­ic un­der­stand­ing. The mar­ket will pay what a com­pa­ny that has a mo­nop­oly charges – its sim­ple. “The mar­ket won’t al­low it”??? Haha thats the fun­ni­est thing I’ve read on this site to date! In a mo­nop­oly there is no mar­ket dic­tat­ing prices. Some peo­ple post­ing here seem to miss that glar­ing­ly ob­vi­ous fact.

    When com­pe­ti­tion no longer ex­ists the mar­ket can get stuffed. To the mo­nop­oly ex­perts – please in­form me of a few mo­nop­o­lies of late where prices, prod­ucts and ser­vice ac­tu­al­ly “im­proved”??


  35. damo says:

    Oh yeah and thanks for the top 20 woz. 

    Don’t give up your day job and def­i­nite­ly don’t ex­pect any phone calls from the Letterman Show re: va­can­cies for the “Top Ten” job.

    I can tell that took you some time and ef­fort and for that you should be ap­plaud­ed – by some­one… somewhere

  36. Martin says:

    Here’s an­oth­er one of these ar­ti­cles “Why InDesign can make your cof­fee taste much sweet­er than Quark”:


    Very un­bi­ased, neu­tral ar­ti­cle…. wait, strange, these guys make mon­ey with Adobe prod­ucts. Hm, why does InDesign win here I wonder???

    When do peo­ple fi­nal­ly re­al­ize and see that there is no neu­tral study? Wake up and test your­self. Any study, any con­sul­tant will make a study in the fa­vor of the per­son pay­ing for it or be­cuase he/she sees a way of makign mon­ey with con­sult­ing af­ter hav­ing ad­ver­tised a cer­tan di­rec­tion, some­thing “com­plete­ly new, on­ly we know about us. Ask us, we help you!”.

    Hang in there

  37. woz says:

    @Damo: RTFP. Ik wasn’t my list. I stum­bled up­on it in the Adobe fo­rum and re-posted it here. Who knows, maybe it was your boss’s list, and he doesn’t like Quarkheads, hmm?

    @Peter, It’s not about who in­vet­ed it. It’s about what com­pa­ny ac­tu­al­ly INVENTS. It’s far more like­ly to ex­pect new/better things from Adobe then from ‘that oth­er page lay­out company’. 

    @Martin, of­course. It’s the way the world works. But most peo­ple here are pro’s and have used or will use more then one sin­gle pro­gram. We can see through (most of the) ‘smoke and mir­rors’ from Adobe, Quark, and oth­ers. Even if we don’t we will find out soon enough when us­ing the pro­gram. Anf be­cause of the in­ter­net the world will know if we think it sucks! (This was the main rea­son Quark closed it fo­rum short­ly af­ter the re­lease of Quark Xress 6). LOL…

  38. Peter says:


    if “It’s not about who in­vent­ed it. It’s about what com­pa­ny ac­tu­al­ly INVENTS. ” was true, then you should rave for Quark, as they in­vent­ed pre­ci­sion (box­es, lead­ing in pt sizes), made trans­paren­cies use­ful (attribute-level, not ob­ject lev­el) and gave ad­van­tage by im­ple­ment­ing PS-functionality in a lay­out app.

    By the way all things Adobe did copy (in­to PM) or will copy (e.g. box­es, gran­u­lar trans­paren­cies and Photoshop ef­fects) in­to CS3.

    But still I some­how doubt you will now critize Adobe ;-)


  39. woz says:

    Well I have done just that. One of my posts re­ferred to ‘Adobe: The fish rots from the head first, ar­ti­cle on http://​www​.dar​ing​fire​ball​.net. Pariah de­cid­ed to write an en­tire ar­ti­cle about it. Read it for youre­selve: http://​quarkvsin​de​sign​.com/​n​e​w​s​/​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​s​/​2​0​0​6​/​0​5​/​e​n​o​u​g​h​-​w​h​i​n​i​n​g​-​a​b​o​u​t​-​t​h​e​-​a​d​o​b​e​-​m​a​c​r​o​m​e​d​i​a​-​m​e​r​g​er/

    I’m not a ‘Adone-is-the-best-screw-all-the-rest. In fact, on my site http://​www​.mac​mo​jo​.nl you can read sev­er­al ar­ti­cles about Adobe prod­ucts like Distiller with crazy self-heal func­tions, InDesign with not op­ti­mal transparan­cy flat­ten­ing stan­dards that can cause ma­jor prob­lems, ‘hid­den’ but very im­por­tant pal­lets in Illustrator, stu­pid trans­la­tions for the old ‘over­print’ and the new­er transparan­cy func­tions, Adobe’s des­i­cion to split Acrobat in­to sev­er­al prod­ucts (Pro, and all that), Adobe’s choise for non-standard ISO ICC over­here in Europe, let­ting SWOP be the de­fault for col­or­sync in Photoshop in Europe and ‘what not’. But it’s in Dutch. I’m think­ing about trans­lat­ing the ar­ti­cles in English. A lot of the in­fo is for European stan­dards, so I don’t know just how use­ful it might be in English…

  40. Martin says:

    Did any­one use Quark 7 yet in production?

    That’s maybe more in­ter­est­ing than “ex­perts” telling us…

    Print on

  41. Well, if I read my copies of X-Ray Magazine right, that staff has been us­ing QXP 7 for pro­duc­tion since 7 was in beta.

  42. Martin says:


    that’s in­ter­est­ing to hear, do you have any feed­back from their side?


  43. Martin:

    They’ve been pret­ty thrilled with the way QXP7’s been work­ing for them., and I take that as a sin­cere sen­ti­iment; QXP 7 is, I feel, a great im­prov­ment over QXP 6.x. A Quark user would be very pleased with the im­prov­ments on this.

  44. Comparison be­tween Xpress & Indesign will be end­less, as long as there are dif­fer­ences in the way artists think & work, a flur­ry of in­fi­nite dif­fer­ing opin­ions will en­sue. Suffice it to say that no sin­gle com­pa­ny can pro­vide “every­thing” what so enor­mous a crowd of users (with vary­ing ideo­syn­cra­cies), would ever need or want. As sim­ple as that. But let me con­grat­u­late both: Adobe for what Indesign now stands for and is ca­pa­ble of do­ing; and, of course, Quark, for com­ing up with such a laud­able up­grade that for sure will keep it at the front of graph­ics in­dus­try in many years to come. I, my­self, use both, and en­joy both. I think that’s gonna be that way for many years to come; as long as both strive im­prov­ing fea­tures at their own back­yard — prices will re­al­ly not mat­ter, bundling & oth­er mar­ket­ing tac­tics won’t make much of a dent. It’s al­ways the new tricks & fea­tures that will thrill buy­ers & users. So in­stead of ex­chang­ing fum­ing words & rant­i­ngs, why not Quark & Indesign users try to out­shine one an­oth­er with a piece of art­work or ar­ti­cle that will in­spire the world for no­ble ideas. So we may at­tain the true pur­pose of ART, which is greatness.

  45. woz says:

    ‘nough said.
    Show me the art! ;-)

  46. damo says:

    Both soft­ware are al­ready do­ing that (cre­at­ing in­spir­ing artwork). 

    Its just that one “com­pa­ny” is screw­ing the mar­ket­place while their users are too busy con­grat­u­lat­ing each oth­er to no­tice. Adobe & Macromedia was bad – re­al bad.

  47. Paul Chernoff says:

    Our mag­a­zine switched from QuarkXPress 6.5/QPS 3 to InDesign CS2/K4 5.5 just one year ago and we nev­er looked back. I spend much less time fix­ing tech­ni­cal prob­lems (I’m the IT guy) and our de­sign­ers are much hap­pi­er with InDesign.

    I spent a lot of time look­ing at QuarkXPress 7 be­tas be­fore the change. While the in­ter­face is much im­proved and there are many im­prove­ments in the pro­gram, I was dis­ap­point­ed that fea­tures that are core to mag­a­zine pro­duc­tion were not im­proved (and I lob­bied Quark for a long time about these is­sues). Style sheets are much weak­er than InDesign and I found that de­sign­ers tend­ed not to use them. I find since switch­ing to InDesign de­sign­ers make much bet­ter use of style sheets due to InDesign’ al­low­ing to build sy­tle sheets on one an­oth­er, the ease in mod­i­fy­ing stylesheets and the pre­view ca­pa­bil­i­ties. Likewise InDesign mas­ter pages are way su­pe­ri­or to QuarkXPress’. Inheritance is a ma­jor factor.

    And Quark still has not re­leased QPS 4 yet, mean­ing that my mag­a­zine could not even use QuarkXPress 7 since there is no work­flow soul­tion for it.

  48. NK says:

    I’m a bit fed up with peo­ple whin­ing that they’re scared of Adobe be­com­ing a “graph­ics mo­nop­oly”… come on, Adobe pi­o­neered this in­dus­try! Quark was the on­ly re­al pub­lish­ing ap­pli­ca­tion for a long time, and the com­pe­ti­tion for top spot in this area has been pret­ty fierce, but what about the rest of the DTP world? What com­pe­ti­tion has there re­al­ly EVER been for Photoshop? PhotoPaint? Fireworks? how about (spit on the ground as I type this) Paintshop Pro? Don’t make me laugh.
    What com­pe­ti­tion has there even been for Illustrator? Corel Draw & Freehand? Don’t make me hurl my cook­ies, pa-leease! (al­though, to be fair, Corel Draw does de­serve sec­ond place). The point I’m mak­ing is that it would be no exxager­a­tion to say that dig­i­tal imag­ing as we know it was ba­si­cal­ly in­vent­ed by Adobe; Adobe is king of the hill at the mo­ment be­cause they’re a bril­liant com­pa­ny that pro­duces bril­liant, vi­sion­ary software—not be­cause the “com­petion” from all the oth­er also-ran com­pa­nies has been keep­ing them on their toes (snick­er).

  49. Mjenius says:

    You make a good point. I think we use the term mo­nop­oly too loose­ly. And as much as I love Adobe, a lit­tle com­pe­ti­tion nev­er hurts. Adobe maybe king of the hill, but there tons of oth­er soft­ware that meet cer­tain needs. For ex­am­ple Painter is pre­ferred by by il­lus­tra­tors and for video edit­ing I like to use Final Cut Pro HD. I ap­plaud Adobe for Lightroom, but it’s long over­due, many pho­tog­ra­phers hate pho­to­shop. Freehand and Fireworks has it’s bright sides too, when you’re work­ing with muliti­me­dia. And there’s Flash, which Adobe nev­er had a chance against. Well… un­til they bought Macromedia. Hey, if Quark still has it’s base, I think all these oth­er guys de­serve to be around.

%d bloggers like this: