If you go to Google.com and type in “quark sucks” (with or without the quotes), my site–specifically some op/ed dialogues I started–is the top two listings. This makes me very proud.
It’s almost as if my voice shouting “Quark sucks!” is the loudest–at least on Google.
Cool! I’m sure this entry will concrete your top spot for “quark sucks”! :)
Who *wouldn’t* love software that corrupts it’s own format?
LOL Thanks, David!
True, Carl. Remember: Quark sucks!
That’s what brought me here a few months ago.…but I forgot to comment.
Um, howdy! I just came back to see if there was any new quark suckiness since the last time I wandered this way.
I agree. QUARK SUCKS ASS!!! I hate is more and more everyday. Screw Quark.
Quark may be “user hostile”, but it doesn’t suck nearly as much as InDesign. Takes twice as long to complete a project in ID, and I know both programs really well.
It doesn’t suck as much as everything else. Such faint praise.
Just wanted to join “the QUARK SUCKS list”. Just installed OS Panther and of course now I have to REACTIVATE through their amazingly awful customer service dept. And for you folks that may not know this… you are only allowed to “REACTIVATE” up to 5 times a year and that’s it. So if you’re having hardware trouble, system reinstalls, anything like that sort, watch out!! The only excuse they accept to not add to your “5 times” talley is if you have a corruption so I suggest stating that being the reason every time you have to “REACTIVATE”. PLUS it took 3 days to get a reactivation code last time we needed it. What regular Quark user can afford to be down without their program for that long??!! So next time I need to spend almost $1,000 for a layout program I will be happily giving my money to Indesign as I will pray that they blow away Quark with their next release!!!
Thanks, artmomz!
Thanks, IT Guy!
Betty:
If it takes that long to do a project in InDesign, you’re doing it wrong. Seriously. InDesign makes things a hell of a lot faster–direct PSD and AI placement, without having to use intermediary TIFF and EPS formats; genuine transparency support, not cludged clipping paths or Quark’s internal clipping; real, not faked drop shadows; hanging punctuation; paragraph composer; OpenType support so cross-platform projects don’t reflow; no need to create an annoying picture box before placing a picture each and every time; direct PDF export (that works); nested, (optionally) automatic styles–which of these is not a time saver for you?
Deb:
Yours is only the latest in a long line of activation woes I’ve heard. Notice that the Quark Forums have been taken down?
Rumor has it that the proliferation of activation complaints, coupled with mny positive InDesign reviews and InDesign how-tos, are what prompted the removal of the forums.
Does anybody have an idea of how long it would take to convert the whole industry to InDesign? If this happened, it would make everyone’s lives a whole lot easier. Quark absolutely blows and I can’t wait until it fades away. Quark simply does not listen to it’s customers. I mean, it took them 12 years to simply come up with multiple undo’s. And they still do not have built-in impositioning. And that’s just a start of what’s wrong with Quark. Hopefully within the next few years, the industry will make the switch to InDesign. Productivity and creativity will skyrocket, not to mention customer service!
Will: Welcome to the Quark Sucks InDesign Appreciation Society. :-)
From what I’ve been hearing online and at conferences, the majority of several industries have already switched: magazines, advertising, general design, others. Most designers who can switch have. And those who can’t are lobbying their employers hard to change.
The latest marketing genius from QUARK – to shepard it’s (paying) customers along it upgrade path by making their registered copys NON-TRANSFERABLE. It’s amazing – a ‘Google’ seach for “quark sucks” produces 7,430 hits, yet QUARK management still doesn’t get it!
fight the power
Quark both sucks and blows
Look at the license agreement.
Quark retains the ownership of the CD and the manuals; not the licensee.
The license restricts the use of the physical product solely to the licensee, unless you get permission from Quark.
Now that Quark has stopped doing license transfers, you cannot sell it, or even give it away.
The license goes so far as to command the licensee to destroy the physical product if it is no longer being used.
Look at the license agreement.
Quark retains the ownership of the CD and the manuals; not the licensee.
The license restricts the use of the physical product solely to the licensee, unless you get permission from Quark.
Now that Quark has stopped doing license transfers, you cannot sell it, or even give it away.
The license goes so far as to command the licensee to destroy the physical product if it is no longer being used.
xynaxis: Unbelievable. Quark is mad! They’re killing themselves.
Pariah–look at those “used” copies of QuarkXpress on eBay. If you buy one of these, you are throwing your money away and (may be) using illegal software. If you’re selling one of these, it is fraud. It takes a company like Quark to create a situation like this for its PAYING CUSTOMERS. It is my understanding that Quark changed ownership about 2 years ago, and clearly they don’t know what they are doing. Investing in either versions 5 or 6 is a total waste of money, because the product is seriosuly flawed and has ‘zero’ residual value.
Xynaxis:
I’m just shaking my head and Quark’s mismanagement. Better not try to sell your old software.
I don’t know about them changing owners–my understanding was that Fred Ebrihimi, Quark’s CEO, has always been the majority shareholder–but they’ve always been very antagonistic toward their customers.
FREE QUARKXPRESS SUBSTITUTE !!!!
WORKS IN OSX !!!!!
LEGAL !!!!
If you are an OSX user, there is a German-made SUBSTITUTE for QuarkXPress. It is called Ragtime. If precise color matching is not a requirement, and the software will be used for non-commercial purposes, there is a FREE version of this program called RAGTIME SOLO that can be downloaded from http://www.ragtime-online.com.
SPREAD TO WORD TO YOUR MAC FRIENDS!
Thanks, Xynaxis. Actually, RagTime isn’t limited to OSX users. They also make versions for Windows (XP/2000/NT4/ME/98) and Mac OSes 8 and 9.
I’m downloading a copy now to try it out.
From a quick glance at the marketing material, though, it looks like RagTime is being positioned as more of a business publishing or hobbyist layout program to compete with PageMaker, Microsoft Publisher, or Serif PagePlus.
Still, it’s worth a try. I love layout programs. Serif PagePlus, when they sent me version 1.0 for review about ten years ago, was a whole lot of fun. It wasn’t as powerful and precise as Quark (2? 3? I forget)–for example, PagePlus only allowed positioning to within a one hundredth of an inch, which isn’t precise enough for professional work–but it was a really fun program to play with.
I’ll let you know what I think of RagTime.
Hi
Just thought I’d let you know that Im looking for contributors to my Quark bashing site, that I’m currently developing (www.quarkiscrap.com) if you’re interested.
At the moment it’s mainly a rant but I’d quite like to get some constructive stuff in there. I’ve included a link to this site, too, if that’s OK…
I’m not sure about contributing since I have some other pans in the fire along those lines myself. I think I can at least provide a reciprocal link, Tony. Thanks for leting me know about it!
You know what the funniest thing of all is?
It’s that to this day Quark still has this incredibly arrogant attitude that everyone really wants to pirate their piece of crap!! They should have spent less time on preventing the two people out there who want to steal a copy and put more time in actually making their product better.
I had to use up my ONE free support call only to find out my problem is due to a bug. If their forums were still around I could have found the solution myself in 5 minutes instead of being on hold for 45 minutes!
Oh yea, this is priceless… evidently the reason that they took the forums down was because only people who pirate their software go there for help. Pa-lease, they took it down because everyone was bitching about all of the bugs in version 5 and they KNEW version 6 sucked ass too. Can you say damage control?
Quark Sucks. Long Suck the Quark.
Just got a letter in the mail from Quark, lauding their recent changes. I won’t go into all of the unbelievable back-patting, but rather get to the point: They offered an online survey for feedback.
http://www.quark.com/survey/user/
“Please let us know how we can serve you better.”
Don’t worry, I will!
Thanks, Alan.
I posted about it here.
I tried to answer the survey, but Quark’s Cold Fusion programming skills leave something to be desired.
thanks to Alan for giving me the survey site. Although Quark won’t listen, it sure was nice to vent!
Quark Sucks! (Just wanted to stick in my two cents!) I feel much better and am sure glad I sold my copies on ebay before it was too late! InDesign–there is no substitute! Just remember, it is not Quark and has a larger learning curve for users who are not used to the Adobe interface. Once you get it–there is no turning back. Previously an avid Quark supporter (I have been using it since it first came out!),I have completely transfered my workflow to InDesign. Oh, did I happen to mention that Quark Sucks!!!
Hallelujah! Praise be unto PostScript, brother T‑Bone has seen the light. Say it with me now, children: Quark Sucks!
I don’t feel QuarkXPress 6 is that bad!… All softwares are buggy to some extent then why create so much fuss about QuarkXPress? .…
Beleive me- I hate quark more than all of you combined… Unfortunately I’m having to use it right now and encountering a problem. Quark obviously won’t handle any issues, and for everyone here hating it so much, must mean you’ve used it so much and might have a solution. I’m trying to print an 11x17- only no matter what I do to change the print size from 8.5 x 11 to 11x17 it doesn’t. Oh, this is Quark 4.1… Now for the fun stuff. Quark is quite simply the most pathetic excuse for a software development company in the history of computers. It is the sick, dying uncle that just won’t die. Saying the words industry standard over and over again in an elitist fashion won’t make it so- I’m sure quark was effing brilliant in 1988- So was Duck Hunt. If anyone is uncertain, mark my words like a Calculus mid-term cheat sheet- switchto/choose InDesign at all costs. Cheers.
Beleive me- I hate quark more than all of you combined… Quark sucks. Unfortunately I’m having to use it right now and encountering a problem. Quark obviously won’t handle any issues, and for everyone here hating it so much, must mean you’ve used it so much and might have a solution. I’m trying to print an 11x17- only, no matter what I do to change the print size from 8.5 x 11 to 11x17, it doesn’t. Oh, this is Quark 4.1… Now for the fun stuff. Quark is quite simply the most pathetic excuse for a software development company in the history of computers. It is the sick, debilitating uncle that just won’t die. Saying the words ‘industry standard’ over and over again in an elitist fashion won’t make it so- I’m sure quark was effing brilliant in 1988- So was Duck Hunt. If anyone is uncertain, mark my words like a Calculus mid-term cheat sheet- switchto/choose InDesign at all costs. Cheers.
sorry about the accidental double-post… Quark sucks
Drew:
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Your Duck Hunt comment made me laugh; it’s an apt analogy. Quark is Duck Hunt; InDesign is Halo.
With regard to your print problem… Where do you try (and fail) to change the print size of your document? Do you mean that you have an 8.5 x 11″ that you’re trying to scale up to print on 11 x 17″ at print time?
Give us the details (operating system and version, your printer and PPD version, whether this happens on more than one document, if it happens with a brand new document as well, etc.) and maybe we can help. I train people in Quark and, while with Adobe, provided technical support on Quark to Adobe’s Tech Support team. (In the interests of full-disclosure, here’s my professional bio).
If I can help, I’ll be happy to.
Thanks so much Pariah-
The document size is 11x17- When I change the paper size from 8.5x11 to 11x17 in the printer properties, my print settings in Quark have not changed. It’s Windows XP Professional… This happens on a previously created document. The only workaround I’ve found is to open a new 11x17 document and copy then paste- which should be an unnecessary hassle. The printer is a Ricoh E‑300 with an Adobe Fiery driven postscript 3… it is not without its own flaws, but after a couple of years using Quark, you learn to recognize that specific, agonizing quark headache. Again, thanks so much… I really appreciate it. Quark owes you a multitude of the millions it owes me for time lost and damages. Cheers.
I am so sick of Quark I’m switching back to WordPerfect 5.1.
What a joke! The 6.1 “updater” doesn’t even work! It crashes everytime!
Our company is about as backwards as Quark is though, so if they switch to anything, it would probably be a box of crayons (maybe even with the built-in sharpener Xtension)
I think that the guys, writing about Quark, does’nt know much of the features quark gives it to you.
They are now giving free “variable printing”
extension to it’s customer. Why does’nt you point out this. I tried indesign and it’s does’nt give you half the features what the quarkxpress gives to you.. think over it.
Just an FYI to my fellow Quark-hating brothas and sistas out there: Quark Forums are back up!
Bitch away.
Thank GOD for the PDF. I used Quark for about six years and the place I work at used it for longer than that. So, I had a big fight on my hand to make the switch. But with the help of the Sevice Provider program, I now have a solution. The price for being a member is less than buying Photoshop and Illustrator separtely. And, I get InDesign, GoLive and Acrobat Professional. I used Acrobats Distiller to PDF any job for Quark. If I need to make minor changes, I do it directly in Acrobat. Or, I can delete the items I need to change and import the PDF into InDesign and recombine it into my PDF. I could never accomplish this, with out taking a coffee break inbetween, in Quark because of the “preview” of imported items. For the price of two upgrades, from 4 to 5 and 5 to 6, I can have a seamless workflow and may be enough left over for lunch. Oh, and uh, Quark Suuuucks.
yes you are all right, quark really suck’s!
and it is a expensive suck
Quark is giving away free variable-data publishing? Only if you are running an Indigo. You should read deeper. And as a VDP XTension, whatever the hell that is, eXclusive or some nonsense, it really is not very good and gives you no control over what you are doing compared to something like DesignMerge. DesignMerge in Quark is awesome.
Quark continues to offset their huge development costs of all of their failed software ventures (Remember QuarkImmedia?) by charging more and more for their ONE good product: Quark XPress.
Too bad their major competitor makes a product that’s twice as good for half the price.
“The Bigger they are, the Harder they Fall…”
Our switchover to InDesign is complete. What a relief. Quark Sucks.
Quark. S U C K S.
Couple replies:
To Hoax: You said you’re “so sick of Quark you’re switching back to WordPerfect, 5.1,” That tells me your page layout must be of a simple, non-pro type of layout. If you’re on a Mac, try buying iWork. Apples new “Pages” application is $79, cheap! It’s easy to learn for those non-pro needs. Perfect for those who don’t need the mega power, nor want depth of the ocean complexity, and don’t want to pay the big $$$ Quark or Indesign. Plus you get Keynote bundled in it too (Apple’s sophisticated rival to PowerPoint.)
To Greg: Your point of Quark “charging more and more for their ONE good product” brings up my thought about that point. Quark has ONE product to produce. If all the companies time, energy and resources are dedicated to perfecting ONE single product and, after all these years, it STILL SUCKS, what does this say about their Research and Development staff?
Info for switchers: We found InDesign CS actually converted Quark Documents with greater accuracy and disruption of layout than it converted Adobe’s own PageMaker documents. Odd but true. (level of success varied of course). More than art or photos, a common problem was how the font tracking was interpreted.
Hello, I would like to comment that its true that there are some problem while using Quark, however it is not only with Quark, but also with other softwares also. So instead of searching or finding the flaws we can also look into the better side of Quark.
I agree that Quark has definatley dropped the ball on this one. I have been using Quark for fifteen years now and have used Pagemaker wich sucked even when Aldus owned it. I am using Quark and InDesign now in my workflow and have noticed flaws in both programs.
Quark having screwed “literally” their buyers by complicating the copyright issues in itself is reason enough for me to quit buying their products.
However InDesign may eventually dominate the page layout program they need to fix some postscript bugs as well.
Have a great day!
MacDano
Indesign saved my life, Quark is such crap. I mean u have to buy a seperate plugin just to have tables.. seperate plugins just to do a PDF , and to top it off when working with a lanuage like arabic u need some stupid dongle, and most of the the time the arabic comes out all worng.
QUARK TEAM WAKE UP or DIE,
Indesigne is such a sweet software to work on. Easy to handle, previews are brillant and to make it all better is the wounder ful service the Adobe team provides
I love my job even more thanks to INDESIGN
Nothing SUCKS as much as Quark! I have been sick of them for years and their service is possibly even worse than their program! I switched to InDesign a couple of years ago but some of my clients are still in Quark hell and want me to stay there with them. I praise InDesign as often as I can and HIGHLY recommend to all design firms and ad agencies that I work with to get rid of Quark!!
I used to hate InDesign … but since moving to Mac OSX … and releasing CS2,Adobe really seems to have gotten their acts together. I never thought I’d say it … but I’m a total InDesign convert. (Adobe … I take back every time I’d called it “InDespair”!)
By the way folks … there are much worse programs out there than Quark. Just about anything Microsoft has put out is total crap (anyone try to get four colour separations out of Micro$oft Punisher, I mean Publisher??) And there are still many idiots out there attempting to get profesional printing jobs out of a Word document!
And don’t get me started on Corel!!!
I would take Quirk … I mean Quark over those noob programs any day of the week!
Hi,
I work for a small weekly newspaper and I am VERY interested in switching to InDesign. Our Quark is unstable and nearly unusable…my only concern is how we will process our classified ads? We currently use CAMS and import into Quark with “Get text with X‑tags” is there a plugin for this function or a way around it in InDesign?
I like your site, Thanks!
hb
One reason why Quark even exists nowadays is because of all the “old” graphic designers that are still in the field. I remember being in college a couple years ago finishing up my Bachelor’s and my design teachers still REFUSED to use anything BUT Quark. By then, Indesign CS was out and almoste very student had access to it. But noooo.…, the old designers wouldn’t have it. Same goes for the printing company I interned with that same year – of the 7 designers that worked their full-time for 10+ years, only [1] occasionally used Indesign. The rest were so obsessed with Quark Quickkeys and losing all their extensions that it drove me crazy. Even in late 2004, I still had to use Quark 4.0 & OS9 at WORK at one of the largest printing companies in Northern Michigan. And at the college newspaper where I worked as a production staffer (& eventually manager) from 2001–2004, my boss refused to let us make anything in Indesign. The printer also wanted ONLY Quark and nothing else.
I feel like Quark’s longevity has less to do with it’s amazing abilities and more to do with it’s aging core user base who refuse to try anything new. I mean, my old teachers and boss at the newspaper REFUSED to even let me use JPEGs in place of 100+MB TIFF files! These people *who I think aren’t very knowledgeable technically* are so scared of change, they will continue using Quark for the next 10, 15 years easy.
One of my favorite companies is Corel because they try so hard to put out good products are all about customer service. Their prices are cheap, their software is good (Draw is no Illustrator/Freehand…and Photo Paint is no Photoshop…but they come close and can do some things the others can’t) and for a designer who wants legal, authentic design software at a reasonable price with few tech-hassles, they’re awesome.
But I can’t be a Quark hater 100%. Back from 1998–2004 I could make a book / newspaper / etc. faster in Quark [4.0] than I could in Indesign, hands down. Their really isn’t much to Quark and at times their seems to be TOO much to Indesign…OPTIONS overkill. For designers and people who don’t need to create super complicated layouts, Quark is probably a better choice for efficiency…BUT, after you factor in software reliability, activation and price, Indesign is top dog nowadays.
I may not be in love with Indesign, but I certainly have no love for Quark.
Finally, let me say this: Unless you are making a newspaper or magazine, Freehand beats ALL layout programs easily. Sad to see it go extinct thanks to Adobe, but even so, I’d still rather use Freehand than any other drawing/layout program on the market.
*End Rant* :)
I have been working in the publishing and prepress industry since ’91. I mean real jobs, I won’t even do freelance for my Mother. Nothing gets me to do freelance anymore. 98% of the time, the problems people have with an application are because a) they do not know how to use it b) they do not know how to use a computer or c) they have some grandiose level of expectation about what applications and computers are going to do for them. I can honestly say that people blame the computer most of the time for their own failings. It is very easy to blame a piece of software or some wierd condition instead of just admitting that you do not have the remotest clue what you are supposed to do with this-or-that. If you are working on a computer and have no idea how that computer works or what should be done to it to keep it running properly, then you have no business in this business. Quark or InDesign are not going to help you if you cannot listen to others, understand a digital workflow, or know what a professional production piece should look like. InDesign cannot help you if you make bad pages slowly. If you want to be a pro then a) Use what it is in the best interests of the client and the goal of the piece, b) Be ready to use any and every application on any OS IRREGARDLESS of what your “personal opinion” is and c) never, never, never bad mouth or bitch about another company, client or product; it makes you look shallow and juvenile no matter how you do it.
Pariah, Hey I had a Quark sucks post on your old site! And guess what?Just in the last year our whole office switched. We’ve got graphic designers, project coordinators, copywriters, and even marketing clerks using Indesign. Now don’t get me wrong there was a bit of an investment, and I believe a few of the girls took a day or so to look over some of the Indesign training CD’s we bought. But the results were insane, we now have people who have only worked in Word before using templates that the Graphic Designers put together and cranking out some really professional looking work. As a Graphic Designer I have more time, no crashes, and though I still have Quark 6 installed on my computer I have not opened that piece of crap for months and don’t intend to open it this year. Quark you greedy son of a b, your going down!
One more thing Pariah, have you noticed that the new Quark logo looks a whole lot like something circling the green tolliet bowl. I’ve subconciously put things in my work before but this designer really hit the nail on the head.
What the heck happened. Its as if new programers developed the revision. For example, what is the deal with the barley shaded tool box. You can’t even tell what the heck your on. Or type, it does not read. Clicking a box is delayed. So you must anticipate the next click. Generally the program is much slower. It feels strange– off. Is there any hope. Because, I fucking hate Indesign, just because!
InDesign has great features, but compared to QXP, I find it fussy to handle.
Takes getting used to , I guess.
How could you compare a program that works seamlessly with illustrator, Photoshop, and a host of other formats. Hell I rather use Pagemaker than Quark.
InDesign definitely has cornered market for creative layout design!
Upgrading to Quark 7 deactivates the Quark 6 serial number. I wouldn’t care except that 7 opens 6 files all screwed up and they basicly have to be rebuilt. 6 will run if already installed but it can’t be reinstalled. I told the tech support supervisor that all our new projects are being done in InDesign.
Our graphic design firm switched from Quark to InDesign a couple of years ago when Adobe CS came out and Quark was busy insulting print designers and Mac users alike.
I look back on those dark days of Quark headaches and it makes me feel sad for the designers out there today who are forced to use such awful software to do their jobs.
All the problems with Quark tend to kill the creative spirit or at the very least distract and slow you way down.
#1 Quark Dis’:
“Your mom’s so stupid, she created Quark.”
or
“Your mom’s so stupid, she willingly uses Quark.”
or
“Your mom’s so fat, she eats Quark, but then throws up because it sucks so much.”
-jps
This is all you really need to consider when comparing the difference between the two progs:
I’ve worked in multi-color, full-color, vector based and raster based output. I’ve recieved output-ready artwork in just about every file format imaginable for every form of output imaginable, for every type of client. Highend graphics, to low end crap. It’s been my experience to find that of all the page layout I get in both Quark 7 and Indesign (CS2), the best artwork and most well-designed stuff comes to me in Indesign format. Period. People, i believe, only still use Quark because they “have” to. Whether it’s because they aren’t willing to learn something new (which is often times the case in print), or it’s because pathologically, they think what they don’t know WILL hurt them. If you honestly think that Indesign is “harder” to use, and it takes you longer, it’s simply because you aren’t as well versed in the Adobe app interface as you should be. Period. There’s basically nothing in Quark 7.0 that’s as intuitive as what you get in Indesign. I just got the newest Quark 7.02 upgrade, and today I’ve encountered THREE ALL NEW PROBLEMS!! WTF?! With 7.01, Quark was crashing like it was nobody’s business. Now, the previews are all jacked, and can barely use the Content tool to type without having to restart the application, because i can’t see what I’m typing as soon as I type it. I’m running on a Dual 2.3 PowerPC G5, with 2 gig of DDR2, and this crap simply should not be happening. The only thing bad I can say about Indesign is that it periodically crashes, but no more than Quark does. However, Indesign’s crash recovery (which Quark has yet to develope a version of, like it never crashes) more than makes up for that flaw. Indesign even CRASHES better than Quark. Why? Because Quark IS CRAP!
Oh yeah, in case you haven’t upgraded to Quark 7 and are considering it first by trying the “evaluation version,” be forewarned: any file you make using the eval. version of Quark 7 cannot be opened in ANY Quark version besides 7. So if you try it out and create a working project for professional use, YOU HAVE to purchase the fully registered version of Quark 7 after your eval. version expires if you want to open the project again. Any version of Quark prior to 7 will not allow you to open a Quark 7 project. Can we say “highway robbery” class? No? Maybe “shotgun wedding.” Maybe not…howabout “Quark is crap.”
@JoeMama:
“Oh yeah, in case you haven’t upgraded to Quark 7 and are considering it first by trying the “evaluation version,†be forewarned: any file you make using the eval. version of Quark 7 cannot be opened in ANY Quark version besides 7.”
Where did you read such rubbish? Of course I can open files created by the evaluation version of QuarkXPress 7 with any production version.
Quark has changed that with version 7, you live in the past, this used to be the way their demo versions worked (up to 6.5).
Hey, Joe, it is 2006! ;-)
Uh, that’s not something I read Peter. That’s FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE! However, I should be more clear to mention that this expericence is only partial to what happened to me, but honest-to-jehosaphat, I had version 6.5 on my G4 and G5, and after getting the 7.0 eval version and having it expire after a month, I could not for the life of me open the files I had created in 7.0 in 6.5. The program (6.5) gave me an error message saying that it was made in a different version of Quark. Actually, let me take a moment to reapeat the process, hold on a sec:::goes to 6.5::::opens a 7.0 project::::: UH OH! LOOK! I get a message saying VERBATIM:::“This document cannot be opened by this version of Quark Xpress.” Seems like this isn’t just an evaluation issue, since the company i work for has since purchased the fully registered version. The point is, I CANNOT open a Quark 7 file in version 6.5, not vice-versa. Period. Let me repeat myself since it seems you don’t seem to grasp what it is i’m saying: QUARK IS CRAP!!
hello Pariah Burke! I was doing a project on Quark vs Indesign, and we were suppoused to make a personal preferrence. Well, now its Indesign. The more and more i read about the “war” between the two, and what horrible decisons Quark has done, i’ve come to the conclusion that quark deserves to die.
i have nothing to Xpress but to put a Quark in it,
@JoeMama:
You cannot open a 6.5 file in 7? Does that surprise you? My ID CS cannot open a ID CS2 file. Naturally, how could they have known in old versions how the newer version will look like?
So you need to dowsave. In InDesign via INX, in Quark via Export->Layout as Projects.
Bottom line: Often the problem sits between the keyboard and the chair ;-)
P.S.: There is a 6.52 update available, which fixes many of the downsave-issues in 6.5
2½ years ago I took over production at a country newspaper which was using quark 4 to put together their paper. after five months I managed to get them to update to InDesign CS, thank god. what a saviour! NOW, the paper has been bought out by a larger newspaper group and they want everything back in quark and they’ve installed v6.5. I can’t tell that much difference except for starbursts on the tool box. What a joke!
Life has become so much more painful at work now, the paper looks awful. Advertisers aren’t happy either and the owners don’t see the problem believing Quark is king, haaaa.
QUARK SUCKS
Steve, That is a common scenario in the newspaper business. Quark is dominant in that sector. Just think about the type of people running the show. You also have to consider that they want all their newspapers on the same platform. Since the have all their equipment and software setup to run on Quark, they are not gonna budge. Not to mention that newspaper is a shrinking industry. The bottom line rules, but for what it’s worth, I agree with you.
Surprise surprise the Adobe “fanboys” wanna bag Quark. I was an “ex Quark blah blah”.… “I hate Quark because it has stupid name blah blah”
You guys seriously need to:
a. Grow up
b. Get a life
c. Leave you computers and spend some time in the company of real people.
You’re like children.
Get your wives or girlfriends to read your pathetic drivel, whining and bitching and then try to pass yourselves of as “real men”.
I can appreciate the frustrations about Quark: I use it every day. I’m a newspaper editor, and that’s what our Macintoshes and presses are set up to use.
I can also appreciate all of the designers that don’t like Quark. It’s your choice.
However, I get really mad when people send me job applications that say “I can use Quark, I guess, but I prefer InDesign.”
I don’t care what you prefer. Personally, I prefer PhotoShop. However, our company and the way its presses work are set up for Quark. Just because you prefer InDesign does not mean that the company is going spend a few million dollars to reinvent the wheel for you.
If you want to work at a newspaper, you need to know and work with the design programs that newspaper uses. Don’t waste my time telling me what you prefer. Can you use what we use? If you can’t, and you can’t do it without complaining, then move along. I’ll find someone else.
That’s what your professors called working in the real world. This is the real world. If you’re freelancing and paying for the software, you can use whatever you want. When you come to work in a company, don’t waste its time with what you “prefer.”
We prefer that you use the software that’s provided.
And if you’re telling potential bosses that you prefer one program over another, then expect them to prefer another applicant over you.
Welcome to the real world!
Quark is a JOKE!
Just had to install Quark 7.
It changes every Quark Icon to this ridiculous
new Icon making it imposiible to distinguish
between your older files (6.5) and new files (7).
Down converting from 7 to 6.5 is crashing 6.5!!
It’s upsurd!
And what’s up with the application Icon?
What the F is that thing?
Why are they so useless?
Jimbo,
First, learn about operating systems. And then think about document icons again.
Secondly, make the update to 6.52, then Quark won’t crash anymore when downsaving.
Thirdly, if the only bug Quark had was the application logo, you should be happy.
Your
Info
Despite all the hassles I like quark 7, the way indesign handles imagery is longwinded and cludgy, it doesn’t even support bilevel tiff colourisation. If I drag and drop a colour, indesign assumes its the top object rather than where I place the colour tile. It also clutters up my desktop with shed loads of palettes. Why they don’t have transparency with the colour palette either is not a good idea. Its also too busy assuming I want to place image INTO objects on a page when I don’t. It doesn’t work well with layered items either. Its taken twice as long for me to do a job as it would have in Quark!
I hope to god Adobe don’t buy Quark as well, as they have form, with Illustrator effectively wiping out the brilliant Freehand by acquiring Macromedia was one the the worst blows to creative communities. They say they’re keeping Freehand – yeah right?… Being railroaded into software by monopoly seeking companies is just not healthy. Vive le Quark!
My two cents.
I wonder if the fear of an Adobe monopoly has something to do with our awful experience with quark’s past dominance? Don’t get me wrong I’m against monopolies. And I applaud everyone who jumped to quark 7. OK so you don’t like ID, but what’s everyone’s excuse now? (Unless it’s financial or compatibility issues). Keep in mind that quark 7 has a side effect… I’ve personally witnessed long time Quark aficionados openly ciritize previous versions after moving up to quark 7. Well I’m happy for all of you, congratulations, finally a good version. All I ask is that you’ll be happy for me when CS3 comes out… but that’s probably wishful thinking ‑_-
I agree with the old designers sticking with quark comment. Some are just so stuck in their ways. I hope Adobe win this battle, they deserve it because Quark has had long enough to improve it’s shoddy product (and it’s price)…
I have to add to a previous post:
Quark 7 is defying the laws of the physical universe by sucking and blowing at the same time!
I try so hard not to bag on quark on every comment that I make, but that’s just too funny.
InDesign SUCKS, get real QXP is faster, output is quicker and more predictable, Flattning in InDesign is prehistoric. large documents grind to a halt in indesign and that’s on a G5 4GB RAM. People say XPress in not creative, what about layout spaces, shared obsjects, composition zones, JDF support, UB Support, Better psd support than InDesign. This looks like a compant that has seen what Adobe can do and said “You have no clue” the practical use of these features is unlimited.
From experiance your all just upset becouse you don’t know how to use XPress anymore. let’s see what Adobe does in responce to Xpress 7.5 and 8.
Don’t be crazy,
I value your opinion, but I’m very confused about two things you mentioned.
1. “large documents grind to a halt in indesign and that’s on a G5 4GB RAM.”
2. “…Better psd support than InDesign”
M Jenius:
He’s right. (Actually, he’s been running all over Quark VS InDesign.com commenting anywhere he could, and probably read where I stated XPress 6.5 and 7 have better PSD support than InDesign CS2).
They both place PSDs and do something with the layers, but InDesign CS2 is limited to controlling Layer Comps (not layers), which requires forethought and prep in Photoshop. XPress, on the other hand, will control layers in a placed PSD directly.
XPress also has attribute-level transparency control whereas InD CS2 is limited to object-level. In InD CS2, the entire object can be rendered partially transparent or its blending mode changed, but in XPress, the box and content can be controlled separately, as can attributes like stroke and fill.
The current status, as of the release of XPress 6.5 and the PSD Import Xtension, is that the current release of XPress has greater PSD control and support than the current release of InD.
Actually I never read your artical regarding psd support, as a user of XPress and InDesign I actually know what the applications are capable of doing, I’m reading posts on this site as this is the first time I have visited.
Under the impression from the title I was hoping to get correct unbias information. which is not the case, more like a marketing tool for Adobe and personal gain. alot of info on other Adobe products with no comparison with Quark technology, a total lack of acknowledgment for QPS or CopyDesk. Server 7 and InDesign server comparison!
And that was 6.5, better performance with 7, UB support etc.
Wow, I gotta get that Xtension. The guys here at work are going to love it, since they are mainly Quark users. Either they didn’t know about this, or they are holding out on me.
Thanks
Yes, Quark Sucks but don’t be waiting for a better version to come out. Quark hasn’t been right since v3.32 on the Mac. 5 wasn’t bad but I’ve been in a prepress environ. for years and InDesign is now the choice even for our customers. Many have switched over the past 2–3 years after being told to buy Quark if they want to ‘stay current’ with leading trends. Quark has parted ways with reality and (at the risk of sounding pro-Adobe) a Creative Suite package costs a bit less than just Quark alone. It’s a no-brainer why anyone would switch to InDesign. I have worked for YEARS with both and even the trade schools are switching, recognizing the trend for multi-platform, universal recognition of Adobe products. Even if I’m an old user, I still know enough to change when necessary.
p.s. Quark Sucks
I am here to announce, even in 2007, Quark sucks the excrement of the lowliest bottom-dwellers in the sea. If you don’t have InDesign, GET IT.… Bye bye QUIRK!!!
Sure both programs have their downside, or reasons they suck, however you want to put it, but you still can’t beat Quark for it’s ease of use when it comes to images. Placing images, updating links in customer supplied files, copy and paste an image from one file to another – Quark still rules. I output ID files all day and gang the low res versions of the pages into a Quark page to output proofs because its easier. Sit next to me and see who can do it faster‑I can in Quark. Why doesn’t ID have a save settings button in the print dialog box?
Quark Sucks!
I have been putting off an inevitable switch to InDesign. After 12 years, I have had it with Quark. I am soooooooooo done.
My moment of clarity came when my new intel mac running quark 6.52 refused to work with my version of Myriad (Multiple Master), which is my company’s corporate font. I have tried all the known workarounds (turning certain extensions off, etc), but could not get the font to print. Bought the OpenType version of MyriadPro, but guess what–IT DIDN’T WORK EITHER. Now mind you, I have no other issues with either version of this font from any other program on this machine–only Quark. We don’t have the option of choosing another font.
InDesign always prints the fonts without a problem.
InDesign doesn’t tell me my brand new Myriad font is “corrupt and will be substituted by courier”.
InDesign won’t go into your fridge and drink all your beer (hey I know that’s a stretch, but don’t think those beyatches at Quark haven’t tried).
And with charitable pricing (we’re a non-profit) I can get the whole CS3 suite for less than just buying quark (who doesn’t recognize our NP status).
Quark–are you listening?? Just build a program that works! Why should your customers who spend the $900+ on your product be forced to come up with workarounds to make it work? I am just one of many people who use your product that will not be upgrading. You lost me for good!
By the way, I have been told by some people that I need to try Quark 7, because it’s vastly improved. My response to that statement cannot be printed on this forum.
QUARK SUCKS!!!!!
I have used Quark sine v3 and ID since v1 in a print/prepress environment for many different printshops.
Up until recently, V7, both or worked and provided output in predictable form. Now that quack 7 came on the scene trying to copy the perfection of ID, finally put the nail in the coffin. I run a mac pro dual 2.66/6gbram and v7.1 will take 10–20 times the amount of time to produce press quality pdfs if those new transparency features are used anywhere in the document.
I am not a designer or production artist, I FIX what they do wrong, and they do a lot of wrong things so this speed hit is totally unacceptable.
FWIW I know they say the V2 update shouuld fix this problem, but it should have never came about.
john
The only reason i can see why people think one or the other program sucks is: ignorance…
Both programs have their individual strong points and features, but if the past decade has taught anyone in this industry anything, its this: the world is big enough for both programs. And the limited gurus who are among my skill level are hopefully beginning to realize Adobe is a money hungry machine now. Frankly im tired of paying Adobe’s crew for the minimal upgrades, to stay in tune with overpayed designers.
Quark’s always been bugged on new releases, but they are usually tolerable and tend to get corrected promptly. So?
In my business, im fixing all the designers mistakes, and you all make plenty. Thanks for keeping us prepress technicians/software operators in business.
Craig in Memphis
Quark sucks.
Made the switch to ID about two years ago. It is NOT the DTP saviour it is made out to be here. At all. Some slick features and some features that teeter on the edge of idiocy.
Why does Adobe insist on creating effects we KNOW won’t work on press? Well, because the code is written by 20-somethings who have no experience with typography or the press. The web is their printing press. History and experience is for old farts…
Went to a CS3 launch seminar just this week. Asked the Adobe rep the above question. His response was to the effect of… we give you the guns and the bullets, you pull the trigger yourself.
We are not responsible…
Sounds like a very old Quark comment to me.
5 years from now when Adobe OWNS the DTP community – if they don’t already, we may wish their competition didn’t go away after all. The new Microsoft.
What effects do you KNOW wont’ work on press, Shred? All those effects in CS2 and CS3, the transparency, the Photoshop-esque effects, they print. I can personally attest to that. I’ve been using InDesign CS3 for a year now, outputting materials to print (film and digital-to-press) without a problem.
Quark dose not Suck . Folks,Have any of you ever used Micrsoft products if yes enough said. Try printing with Publisher . Indesign was still running an OS 9 framework though CS 2 . Humm modern aplacation i guess. Indesign was based on 80% of the features of XPress . Adobe must have thought it was a good program to copy 80% of it. So bigger question is this. Well Quark be around? After reading this forum i see a number posts saying Quark going away for years now people keep saying that. They have invested in change and they are still here. Building more software tools and updating old tools like QPS . Folks, there are millions of software users out there and if Quark sold only a few hunderd thousand copies they would still profitable . At one point i heard many years ago their were over 3 million users. of XPress 4 so even if they lost half there market that still a large number. And remember there a private software company . I hope there there around for a long time .
PS . The world is using both and you are more marketable using both , the more you know the more money you make ?
To Shred:
No, the web is not their printing press. It pains me to even look at Adobe Golive. And I hope you’re not suggesting using Indesign for web. It may come in handy if you have a layout you want to export or integrate to web, but to say that Indesign is geared more for web is just silly. In fact, what do you have to say about Quark Interactive designer? And yes, history and experience does count. At least for those who are serious about their discipline. I work with a former typesetter and I always ask for advice. I’ve gone through my share of typography, printmaking, and calligraphy in my program. I’d like to think that today’s designer do respect history and experience. But sometimes it doesn’t seem that way because we are just moving forward at a faster pace. We have to keep progressing. Or do you suggest we go back to using linotype? or maybe even the movable type?
How about a spot color in a process job using transparency? That is a very real scenario.
One last comment here. Most InDesign champions have invested about 5 years becoming an expert within that app.
Trying investing 15 – 18 years of experience and then chucking it because of industry ‘trends’. I state this because XPress, for better or worse still works. And yes, eventually something will come along and blow InDesign out of the water. You, the user, will be forced to to dump the equity in your expertise and start again.
InDesign is targeted at what you see on screen – not on press. XPress was/is presscentric. Ink and paper.
Just because Adobe insists you need a new upgrade, doesn’t mean you should have to relearn the entire concept of postscript and printing.
The waters have never been muddier in terms of what file formats to use with InDesign, color management, font management are all big question marks – bigger question marks than they were in 1995.
Progress for the sake of progress?
I want to concentrate on design and creative, not reading manuals and blogs about HOW to get the software to play along.
Software is a tool, not the solution. In my professional life, I have found the software more specifically, the Creative Suite concept is once again leading me around by the nose.
Now I see your point. I agree that it can get frustrating. I make it a point to set aside a few hours every week to train on software. I know that if I stop for awhile I’ll just fall behind. Let’s face it there are tons of software out there and they keep adding new features. Also expectations for designers are steadily increasing. I also notice a trend of taking too many shortcuts. I think this is probably the biggest culprit of the current “lack of knowledge”. It seems like the surge of interest in designers has created a negative effect on production artist. Just because designers can do many things doesn’t mean that they should. It’s one thing for a small company with limited resources, but it’s a shame that even some fortune 500 companies are adopting this practice. I don’t think that the software is at fault, but rather the current trend of the industry that is shaping many of the young designers. I wouldn’t be surprised if in 10 years we’ll have a shortage of real good, hardcore production artists.
I really do not understand the last comment. We switched from QuarkXPress 6.5 to InDesign CS2 a year ago January. We use it for our glossy magazine. QXP was NOT working for us. Well, we were getting our magazine out, but we were constantly hindered by QXP inefficiencies. After our first issue in ID our art dept was more efficient than in QXP.
I do not understand why file formts and color management and font management are big questions marks for you. We never had problems in those areas.
One key for use was to set up a PDF workflow when we used QXP 4. Once we did that we were in position to work with any program to make files for our printer.
Has design really got better since Indesign’s introduction? I see more drop shadows in print than in a bad Stephen King movie. Indesign is a good program, but the strength of Quark is its simple layout. Its the easiest program in the world to learn. A child could be taught to use it in a day. And thats something that Indesign has not been able to accomplish with its multiple pallets and contextual menus. Quark’s pricing, however, reeks of arrogance, but there should always be strong competition. Or else Adobe will become the next Quark, if they arent already.
The reason design (Hollywood anyone?) is falling through the cracks is not because of any particular program. But because they let the program dictate the design. Your design shouldn’t matter whether you’re using Quark or Indesign. Programs are nothing more than tools for us to utilize. Like a carpenter’s hammer. Which is why serious designers should know how to sketch.
Overall I don’t think this is an issue with serious designers. It’s probably become more noticeable because there’s many so called “designers” that just know how to use the program but are not really designing. Although, I think logo design has reached a low point. But again, this is most likely due to the same reason. If I see one more chrome logo I’m going to be sick.
Mjenius,
You are soooooo correct. Adobe feels they can make a designer out of the receptionist – just make the ‘effects’ easy to access and you are off to the races…
Maybe that explains some of those odd job listings:
HEADLINE – Graphic Designer
DESCRIPTION – Answering phone, customer service, assist with payroll, data entry, attention to detail, goal oriented. Must know MS Office, Photoshop and Illustrator, FLash a plus. Also highly preferred if you know how to operate a forklift.
LOL, chrome logo anyone?
LOL I’m qualified for that job!
I have a good example about how using InDesign made a designer more productive today.
She got the text from the editor. It was a list of museums. The only manual part was going to each museum name and then replacing the “; ” with a paragraph return (in CS3 I think I could have automated this action). So now we have an article and the paragraphs follow this pattern:
‑Museum name
‑Museum location
‑Museum description
She then did a search and replace to apply a character style to all italicized text. She then created a paragraph style for each type of paragraph.
Then she selected all of the text to apply paragraph style using next paragraph style option. The correct style was automatically applied to each paragraph in the article.
She then did a Find and Replace to find all semi-colons in the paragraphs marked as museum location and to replace them with ” |” with the proper character style applied.
I haven’t tried doing something like with with QXP 7.2, but I haven’t been able to do something like this with QXP 6.5 and earlier.
Note that the above did not depend on drop shadows or any eye-candy, just basic mechanics for getting things done. My designer will now have more time to do design work (by working with the style sheets) than if she had to do all of the above by hand.
Pariah-
You got the job! I failed the forklift requirement. Too bad Lynda.com doesn’t offer forklift 101 tutorials, lol.
Paul-
Yeah, I’m still amazed at how many designers do not take advantage of automated actions in Adobe products. I can’t say enough about automation, batching, and droplets. It saves me from insanity! Or, it saves the poor interns from insanity!
Since this seems to be one of the more active postings, I thought I’d ask a few question of you folks …
Our office is thinking of making the switch from Quark to Indesign (and mac to PC for that matter).
With that, a few questions:
- As it is now, our office must use both Macs and PCs (yes odd I know, but just go with it), ff we continue to use both and would like to install Quark or Indesign on BOTH systems, would we be able to move back and forth on the same document between the systems?
- What about transferring all of our old Quark documents into Indesign, can that be done? Or if we do swith to solely PCs, could we transfer a Mac quark document to a PC quark document?
Any responses would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Rob, it all depends on how many users there are and how well they know Indesign. If they are mostly new to Indesign, expect a lot of pain and frustration. Make sure that everyone is committed to make the switch because some find it very hard to reprogram their tendencies. You can get third party software like Markzware that converts files. I’m not sure if CS3 lets you import Quark files. I personally prefer to use Quark for Quark files and use Indesign for Indesign files rather than converting them because depending on how the file was put together, it’s never perfect. Your biggest issue will probably be fonts. Going back and forth between Mac and PC will probably drive you nuts when it comes to fonts. I’m assuming that you’re currently using mac fonts. Not sure if there are 3rd party software to curtail this, but it’d worth it to look around. Colors will probably be another issue, unless you spend the money to have them calibrated. Having said that, I’m not a pro on the subject. I gave up designing on PC for awhile. I used to use both Mac and PC before, but since OSX Tiger came out I only use my PC for gaming. The only part that gets upgraded in the PC is the graphics card, lol.
Quark never used to suck. But now…
[To begin, I have to say that some of the early comments on this page are useless – it’s only about half-way down that we get some constructive arguments.]
I’ve been in graphic design and pre-press for close to 15 years now, and Quark Xpress was my best friend – it actually focussed on the important aspects of typesetting, such as leading and paragraphs. It was so simple, professional and uncluttered that only about 12 months ago did I make the change from Quark 4.1 (in Classic) to the “new” Quark 6.2.
What a terrible shame. Instead of strengthening the important ‘old-school’ abilities of the program, they instead tried to make it a complete ‘even secretaries can use it’ design package, including web design. I think this is what made them lose their way.
And for this reason, I didn’t like InDesign either. It’s too easy for any old joe to make a semi-professional looking design… even though a document is only as good as the designer. And there’s the problem, as someone else pointed out earlier – the old school designers (of which I class myself as, not to the point of sticking with Quark for the sake of it though!) are probably a dying breed. It’s sad that the new-wave designers probably have no idea about leading, kerning, trapping, bleeds, etc…
Anyway, to wrap this wandering comment up, I’ll say that I hope Quark finds its feet again, since we do need competition in the industry… but until then, I’ll begrudgingly teach myself InDesign and wish that it had half the professional, old-school type tools that Quark has. And easier colour and object managing.
I hope Quark won’t always suck.
I am fascinated by this page. Many years ago I used to teach QuarkXpress at a university, a college and in the private sector. Beause it was so user-unfriendly I was kept very busy.
At the time the only real competition I can remember was Pagemaker which very few design houses used. Consequently graphics courses were forced to use Quark. So you’d think they’d acknowledge this fact with educational pricing and support.
Wrong.
Price concessions were pathetic to non-existant and to this day I have yet to find a company with more arrogant and ignorant customer support.
In the early days of CAD I remember Autodesk almost gave away AutoCAD to some colleges. So when students graduated, companies getting into CAD for the first time would buy the full price software knowing they could find operators. I wish Adobe would do something like this with InD and finish off Quark for good.
Looks like nothing has changed with Quark over the years. I thank goodness I’m not involved in pre-press any longer.
Perhaps we should have a word with Mr. Adobe. He could do to Quark what he did to my beloved Freehand (sobs).
Joker – do you honestly think you can’t adjust leading and kerning in ID?? I hear this a lot from switchers. “InDesign can’t do X, Y and Z.” I always point out that they SHOULD be saying, “I don’t know how to do X, Y, and Z using InDesign.”
The fact of the matter is, yes, InDesign can do X, Y and Z AND for the most part do it better and with less steps than QXP.
Us “new-school” designer embrace technology. When something better comes out, we learn it and use it to our advantage. Don’t bash software because you don’t feel like learning something new.
Quark is beautiful! It is so easy to create and publish. I’ve been using it since it first came around and it only gets better.
As for InDesign, I guess the folks who loved pagemaker and Illustrater might love it, but I find it to be a piece of shit.
I aint talking about doing a one page flyer but has anybody tried to create a 32 page magazine with InDesign? It’s almost impossible!
@ Paul,
OK, so you like Quark and that is fine by everyone. Also, you dislike InDesign and that is fine by everyone as well. But by saying that it’s almost impossible to create a 32 page magazine with InDesign you’re just discrediting yourself.
Uh, Paul, we use InDesign to produce a 200+ page magazine every month and we love it. We used to lay it out in QuarkXPress. I do not think my designers would switch back.
You might want to re-read my comment, Spagolli. I never said that InDesign CAN’T do those things, and I conceded that I’d need to learn more about it (I’d only used it sparingly when I made my original comment).
In the meantime I’ve found all the features in ID that I used in Quark, but in some cases I still find them more time-consuming than the older Quark methods.
Far from bashing ID, I admitted that it will probably become the new industry leader – I just found it to be a little ‘bloated’ with features that I found unnecessary when compared to a older, stable version of Quark.
I no longer ‘dislike’ InDesign, but I still stand by my original point – it’s a shame that Quark is no longer what it used to be.
Four Funerals and a Wedding…
A funny note from an executive insider at Quark. While employees are jumping ship left and right including Quark’s CFO, two key Marketing Directors, and even their well-loved receptionist of many years, you can still find love within the walls of Quark HQ. After a secret six month courtship, Quark Senior Marketing VP Terry Welty has proposed marriage to infamous Quarkalliance diva, Cyndie Shaffstall. Even though his divorce is still pending he announced to senior management that he’s found the woman of his dreams. It’s comforting to know that even a dysfunctional company such as Quark, love can prevail.
VJ
Your information is woefully incorrect.
The biggest reason I hate Quark is that they REFUSE to include the 9‑point position reference grid that has always been a part of Illustrator and Indesign. I find this tool absolutely indispensable for setting the pivot point on a graphic or text box when enlarging, reducing, etc. How can anybody work without that tool???? It blows me away. I posted that question on a quark forum 2–3 years ago and nobody had a reasonable objection to my post. One user said “Useless tool–ignore this rant, Quark.” Useless my eye! Another user said “Well, I go up to this menu and choose this option and then (blah, blah, blah)…” some convoluted half-assed way of performing the same task that just didn’t cut it. The point is that Quark is too proud to realize the value of a software tool if their archenemy Adobe invents it, and rather than integrate it into their own program in order to help keep competitive, they merely stand there and ignore it, like some proud captain standing on the deck with his nose in the air while his bombed ship is SINKING! Quark is too embedded in the industry to lose its customer base anytime soon–all the major publishers probably still use it and would have to suffer a lot of time and money in order to just switch over to InDesign. And maybe it is often better in areas like monthly magazine layout files and such. But InDesign is still my choice for working with Photoshop and Illustrator on a regular basis. Quark–ugh!
I have been ID user from the beginning. It is a very good solid software. Can’t say I have had any problems. Recently I was forced to adopt Quark 7.31 it doesn’t separate files properly and it truly sucks. The support at Quark is Nil. Quark deserves to die.
Oh my god, i just started using quark again after 7 years of not using it, and amazingly, it is even worse than i remember.
I need a new job (that doesn’t require use of Quark)
boy did i get bamboozled by Quark and the apple store.
I just bought a new Intel/imac running leopard 10.5 to find out Quark 7 is the only version
that will run in leopard and the assholes at the apple store said it would run fine with a free 7.3.1 upgrade form Quark web site.
THIS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!
IT DOSE NOT RETAIN THE HIGH-RES PREVIEW SETTING!!!!
and this is a big problem designers.
I can not sit down with my client to do changes
on his 50 page catalog with over 1000 images
and have it open up with all LOW-RES crappy
looking images.. i am installing indesign now!
Okay. I will say this. ID is an amazing tool for designers and the publishing world alike. Very accurate, awesome previews, the whole bit.
It’s just too bad it takes twice as long to produce something in ID than it does in Quark.
And guess what? If I wanted to use Aldus PageMaker all over again I would use ID CS3.
Great program, needs an 8‑core minimum with 16 gigs of RAM.
For those of you too young to know Adobe is going the way of Corel DRAW; too many features for one program to do effectively. Granted, at least in ID everything works.
Adobe should come out with its own OS…
>It’s just too bad it takes twice as long to produce something in ID than it does in Quark
Our experience is the opposite. Our productivity improved after moving from QXP 6.5 to ID CS2 (we are now on CS3).
we’ve been using InDesign and K4 for the past 3 years and are now looking at switching to QPS, we where promised so many things to switch and less than 30% have been delivered after 3 years, our other titles are on QPS and are producing everything quicker even there web xml feeds. InCopy and K4 are just to slow with InDesign
In my 15 + years of post-college designing, I’ve never used a slower, clunkier, more crash-prone, gimick-laden piece of software in my life. I’m equally amazed at how poorly graphics/elements from other Adobe programs translate when imported/pasted…especially from Illustrator. And last I remember, Illustrator was an Adobe product.
I don’t care how bad Quarks customer service is…I can’t remember the last time I had to call them…either way, I don’t depend on anyone’s customer service.
It seems designers got all giddy over InDesign for one main reason…it said Adobe on the box…dang followers. InDesign may have “arrived,” but in the form of a sputtering Pinto with a different name and a CD player.
-Carlito
Stick with 6.5 version … 7.0 Quark SUCKS.…. takes 80 seconds to open a file? what the hell? also nothing but errors when sending files to mt Harliquin RIP!
Let’s start a petition or something to help the damn thing die already. I have to work again (last time was in 2004) in fucking Quark. It sucks more than words can say. I swear it’s my last project in Quark. I will refuse projects in Quark even if it means I’ll lose money!!
We upgraded our Macs to OSX 10.5, we originally wanted to upgrade to 10.4 but we at the time Apple stopped selling Tiger. Quark told us that our version 6.5 will not get a Leopard patch, so we should get Quark 7. We need Quark because we still have some of our older stuff in Quark and since 6.5 would have issues in the new OS we sacrificed a few things to get Quark 7 it in our budget. Obviously we noticed some issues (not to say that InDesign CS3 has it’s set of issues as well). When we contacted Quark service, they really tried to help us. I must say that they have improved a lot as far as customer service goes. But here’s the weird part, at some point they said that our problem may be Leopard related and they can’t figure it out because tech support is only running Tiger!!! And this was coming from the super. Are you kidding me? Does anyone know if this is true or was this guy just trying to get rid of us?
wish I would have proof read
Ok, so i’ve been re-learning Quark (V 7.1 passport edition) for the last few months as i make this catalog. Here is my take on a new user’s experience with this software:
first thing i noticed, was that when i print something, it doesn’t look like it did on the screen. I don’t just mean the colors either, pictures get chopped off, characters show up out of nowhere etc.
The next i notice is that the damn thing crashes if you look at it the wrong way. i started to keep a log of the crashes and in one week i had over 70!
This is quite possibly the worst program i have ever been forced to use. Don’t buy it!
Im all for a petition to end Xpress right now, lets get some legistature passed to disallow the use of it.
If there’s a petition, I’m in. I also think they should introduce the death sentence for any pr*ck who says that Adobe’s products are inferior just because the name Adobe means “mud hut”, or whatever. What’s wrong with these people? Have the years of using XPress left them with the intellect of a bunch of 5‑year-olds?
Well Quark seem to be alive and well, and still developing, Quark 8 announced today!
Looks very interesting, well worth a look… and I for one think it’s a great thing that there are 2 DTP apps out there!
Freehand is no more despite there being a huge user base!
I don’t hate it, I“m getting frustrated with it. I’ve only started using this program after MANY years of not touching it. It seems pretty much the same But I am having the worst time in getting the text runaround done properly. I’m at the point now where I just can’t work with this crap and go back to Indesign!
Is there a tutorial on HOW TO DO TEXT RUNAROUND somewhere out there??
I’m getting desperate!
Quark does suck… and I used to be a Quark fanboy from 1990.
I worked as a senior graphic designer at a major University. I lived and breathed Quark. We used Quark and it was fine (in the 90’s), except when something went wrong and you needed customer service… Quark service sucked big time!
Never again will I be subject to their ‘customer service’.
But let’s hope Quark doesn’t die completely: Adobe Indesign needs a bit of competition to keep them on their toes or they might become complacent like Quark did! (I hope not).
I have used both Quark and Indesign in and out of several Jobs for the last 7 odd years.
In my summary I thought Quark 6 was far to basic and dated to compete with Indesign.
Quark 7 was a vast improvement but still didn’t cut it for me with the features of Indesign.
However I have been using Quark 8 now for the last 3 weeks and have been totally bowled over by it.
The tools are on another level and bar a couple of small tweeks I would be happy to say its a far, far better product than Indesign CS3.
Stable, intuitive and actually fun to use (for a change).
Ouuuh men!! thanks for let me say to the world that:
I FUCKING HATE QUARKXPRESS!!!! This stupid program SUCKSSS!! Especially the version 7 and high… and my life is a fucking nightmare because I have to work everyday with this stupid program!! it crush all the fucking time!! is someday I know a programmer of QuarkXpress I kick his ass.
So can anyone comment the Quark 8 vs Indd CS4??
Although i enjoy better working on Indesign.. i must admit that both programs have their strenghts and weaknesses.
I know its a crazy mans wish but.. why cant they embed conversion for opposing programs?? It would make my life (and many others) so much easyer… and it wouldnt change my choice.
But its still nice to know what Im missing while using CS4.
Quark got so much right, first time. InDesign users should see how quickly an experienced pro can design superb layouts, and then knock the stuff out in Quark – InDesign is cumerbsome, and doesn’t even approach Ventura from ten years ago for long docs – Creative Suite is just a racket.
I’ve been working with InDesign for about 3 years starting in CS through CS3. I’ve also worked in Quark for 3 years (Quark 5–7) previous and simultaneously with InDesign. Personally, I’ve come to love InDesign.
After just starting a new job, another designer and I have an option of upgrading to Quark 8 or making the switch to InDesign CS4. The other designer has been happy using Quark for 10+ years. Here’s the question…Has anyone used Quark 8 and a recent InDesign to give a decent comparision?
How do you work. InDeisgn is much more powerful than QuarkXPress 8 when it comes to stylesheets (paragraph, character, object) and master pages. Our editorial designers never want to see QuarkXPress again, but our ad designers prefer QuarkXPress; this may reflect differences in how they work or inertia or the fact that they have to deal with ads that come in all sorts of files and never got a chance to learn ID as well as the editorial folk.
Another issue is whether someone moving from QXP to ID is willing to learn the ID way of doing things. If you keep treating ID as if it were QXP you will be unhappy.
I was using QXP professionally since 1989 (US-vs. 1.1). I was an (inofficial) Evangelist, Trainer, all time friend of QXP. Later on, 2005, I as forced to switch to ID (vs. 4, 5, 6). After these years I only feel sadness about QXP – and I see very, very clear signs that Quark Inc. will not survive. Sadness because to touch this programm (vs. 8) feels like touching something of the very far past: outdated, in no way sexy, in no way really userfriendly – Brrrrrrrr! I know these feelings very well: The same feelings I got in the 90s used to the Macintosh UI and looking into something like “Windows”. And I have an absolute KILLER ARGUMENT: Put your cursor in any of Quarks entrance fields. Hit the arrow keys: No reaction at all. You have to type in every value by hand! Hey, Quarks: Are you one beer short of a six-pack? Do you have lost your marbles? Could it be that you do not have both oars in the water? For those who still do not know Adobe products incl. ID: Here the values are changing in one-unit-steps: 1 pt, 2 pt, 3 pt, or Myriad, Myriad Pro, or 1%, 2%, 3%: scrolling through values. So simple. So natural. So self evident.
Mark F. wrote here one year ago (Dec 28th):
“The point is that Quark is too proud to realize the value of a software tool if their archenemy Adobe invents it, and rather than integrate it into their own program in order to help keep competitive, they merely stand there and ignore it, like some proud captain standing on the deck with his nose in the air while his bombed ship is SINKING!”
That’s the point, exactly that’s it. And there is a simple word for such a behaviour: stupidity, foolishness of those who are running this company. They do not know their job.
Period.
Party is over. Final stroke.
Quark has no right to survive.
I used to like Quark. I’ve used it for years, both at work and at home.
Now I hate it. In fact I’ve come to loathe it more and more. I took it completely off my system at home, and got a 3rd party plugin (http://markzware.com) to convert all my Quark docs to InDesign CS3.
At work, we are still so backward that we use Quark, when even companies in Third World countries are switching over to InDesign. (While for them, this may be because you can actually afford to buy the whole Creative Suites for as much as it costs to buy one lousy copy of Quark, this is still a good decision on their part.
Quark, you NEVER listened to us the users. You could get away with this when the competition was PageMaker, but not anymore. InDesign is here and it’s time to shape up or ship out.
Thanks for the thoughts. We’ve just received our CS4 package. The other designer is willing to learn and has done research on her own about what seems to be preferred. InDesign is the hands-down winner.
We uploaded both Quark 8 and InDesign CS4 trials and after she saw Quark 8, she felt like she’d have to learn so much over (from Quark 6) that she might as well make the switch to InDesign.