In the ongoing tug of war on the hearts and minds of designers and layout artists everywhere, Quark, Inc. links to positive press to make its case. But should Quark be a little more careful about what they link to?
Updated 24 October, 23:15 PT
Updated 25 October, 23:15 PT
Just about everybody who has a commercial presence of some sort, if they’re smart, link to postitve notices about them in the press. Mind share is all important in the battle for the hearts, minds, and dollars of designers and users of layout software everywhere these days.
Quark proves this with its public relations moves, most notably with its recent rebranding and redesigning of the Quark logo and look. And, like many other similar enterprises, a department of the Quark web presence is devoted to postitive publicity; Quark calls it “In The News”. The current top story, “Will Adobe Manage to Replace Industry Work Horse QuarkXPress”, wasn’t originally titled that way; moreover, the credit, a blog called “Hardworking Clown”, is not where the link goes back to…
But I digress. The actual story is a little strange, and is guaranteed to leave one scratching one’s head.
Send in the Clown
On the 14th of October, a blog called “Hardworking Clown” published an article with a title most strange: Will Adobe Manage to Replace Industry Work Horse Quark Express by Giving Adobe InDesign for Free?. What A Great Night.
The blog in question is called Hardworking Clown, and has existed since only September 2005. It seems to consist of nothing more than articles reprinted from a content vendor called EZineArticles.com, sprinkled with illos that are essentially information-free advertisements. Moreover, each post seems to be not one but two EzineArticles.com articles on unrelated subjects stuck together; the latter half of the posting, titled “What a Great Night”, seems to concern itself with a baseball game.
Clown? Maybe. Hardworking? I will leave this as an exercise for the reader.
Naming your own price?
Once again, I digress. The article’s central argument, which holds that Adobe is attempting to supplant Quark by the Microsoft-style embed and conquer (which was what it was trying to do with Internet Explorer) strategy. The argument seems buttressed in the main by listing the prices of each component of the CS2 separately, as if someone would buy the entire CS2 separately instead of getting the consolidated suite.
Here’s their primary exhibit:
- Adobe Acrobat (“1 user”) $383.73
- Adobe GoLive $386.15
- Adobe Illustrator $480.67
- Adobe InDesign $676.79
- Adobe Photoshop $548.51 (only Photoshop + Illustrator are $1030 at these prices)
They conclude:
- The value of the retail products is $2475.85. so, InDesign is absolutely FREE.
I am certainly no expert on rhetorical figures, but this seems to be a large part “straw-man” (positing a notional naîf who would actually go out and buy the entire CS piecemeal) and one huge part leap of illogic–at least, the logical path from buying the CS2 at the regular retail price to getting InDesign for free if on buys all parts at thier piecemeal prices, seems indirect at best (and about as awkward as this last sentence).
The real head-scratchers are the prices, with all the odd cent amounts on. This is something that can, presumably be checked.
Adobe Acrobat is quoted by the writers as being at a street price of $383.73. That seventy-three cents doesn’t sound like Adobe’s style, and there isn’t merely one version of “Acrobat (1‑user)” available, but two; Acrobat 7 Pro (the more expensive, feature-endowed version) and Acrobat 7 Standard (for the average Joe who also happens to want to create PDFs).
Acrobat 7 Professional boasts the following pricing (from the Adobe website at www.adobe.com):
- Acrobat 7 Professional full: $449.00
- Acrobat 7 Professional upgrade (from Acrobat 6): $159.00
- Acrobat 7 Standard full: $299.00
- Acrobat 7 Standard upgrade (from Acrobat 6): $99.00
And that’s from Adobe, directly which, if you can, is the method I recommend anyone buy Adobe software. If you go with discount houses, be extremely careful. Many places can provide you with excuciatingly low prices on high-end graphics software, but frequently they are cracked and hacked versions.
Also, note the comparatively deeply discounted prices for upgraders. This is a successful strategy on Adobe’s part that enables many users to stay current. Upgrading from CS to CS2 amounts to about 1/2 the cost of original entry.
Interested in where the authors got that price on Adobe Acrobat, I ran the search term Adobe Acrobat $383.73 through Google. Nine results were returned. Only three of them linked exact. They were all links to other sites running that particular article. I could find absolutely no links to any sites anywhere selling any Adobe Acrobat for $383.73. Why the odd amount? Shipping charges included? The authors leave absolutely no clue as to how they arrived at their figures.
A bit later on in the article the authors note that at software reseller AtomicPark.com (which seems to have a solid reputation behind it) offers QuarkXPress for $707.00 (you still apparently have to go to the Quark site to get the free 6.5 upgrade). That much is true. What the authors oddly leave out is that if you go to the Quark corporate website you can get QuarkXPress 6.5 for $699.00 now.
More fun facts and wordplay
The article carries on similarly in other ways: that Adobe claims InDesign will “kill” Quark (the title was bestowed by the media, not Adobe), that Adobe bought Aldus and Pagemaker to “kill” Quark (not exactly), that Adobe’s creation of the Creative Suite is an illegal bundling strategy to lock in customers to InDesign (then why isn’t Quark taking Adobe to court?), inscrutable numbers on training time and learning curve which I can’t trust, given the price discussions above, and the requirement of getting new computers, bluntly asserting “older computers (let’s say 1 year old) will choke and kill your productivity trying to run the new Creative Suite 2, and waiting for anything to load, and run. You need a new computer to run the software, period”. To be blunt, that’s asinine; my setup is a PowerMac G4 dual-processor 1.25 GHz “Mirrored Drive Door” model from 2003. It runs them acceptably well. This computer is two years old.
The bottom line here is that the article is, in my opinion, wrong. What’s more surprising is that is was authored by two authors who, judging by thier credentials, I’d expect more polished insights.
That Quark would link to such an article so prominently just leaves me scratching my head. Just what is going on over there in Quarkville?
But wait, there's less!
The mere linking to such a strangely-presented article is one thing. Few stories, which would otherwise be insignificant if handled better, have such a strange afterlife.
Originally, on or about the 15th of October, the article was posted to the Quark web page with the title Will Adobe Manage to Replace Industry Work Horse Quark Express by Giving Adobe InDesign for Free? left intact, even as to spelling. Quark, on its own front page, ignored an egregious missepelling of its flagship, signature product. For a company renowned for its recent attentive care of its public image, this sort of thing sticks out like a sore thumb.
By the 19th of October, someone at Quark must have realized how that looked, for it was then changed to simply Will Adobe Manage To Replace Industry Work Horse…, which was still linked to the “Hardworking Clown” posting.
Today, 24 October 2005, was found yet another change: the title now links to the business blog of one of the actual co-authors of the actual article, and now reads Will Adobe Manage To Replace Industry Work Horse QuarkXPress . But that’s not all: the link credit (in small type in green just below the title still credits the Hardworking Clown.
It all leaves one wondering where this news item will go next. A final warning: if one chooses to proceed to the author’s blog site, please be kind to them. She’s taken a fair beating; the comments left on it are not for the faint of heart, or for childrens eyes.
And the battle rages on.
See Quark’s “In The News” page, and the link to the article. [Link to article removed from that page 25 Oct 2005 –Ed.]
Update, 24 Oct 2005, 20:45 PDT approximate
Within what must have been mere minutes after posting the above article, the author of the article has deleted all comments and turned off commenting for the entry (click here to go straight to it at “Valor Crossmedia”).
There is still a link to a reference article, which turns out to be a review of InDesign CS2 that details why a perodical (the newsletter of the Chicago-area Mac User Group “The NorthWest of Us”) switched away from Quark to InDesign. How this review, which details less than satisfactory interaction with Quark and XPress 6 contrasted with superior treatment from the Adobe rep, is a suitable reference for the article is another exercise for the reader.
The article has also caught fire in the Quark Forums (with an opening post that broke the display), including a response from the author Galina Arlov.
Update: PDF of original article and comments
24 Oct 2005, 23:15 PDT (by Pariah S. Burke)
The Quark VS InDesign.com staff has learned that, in cases like this “Will Adobe Manage To Replace Industry Work Horse…” article, which jumped sites, changed article content post-publication without divulging that fact, and deleted reader comments (at least once), proof is everything. So, of course, we made a PDF of the article–including comments from readers of the article.
Although at least one reader comment was removed prior to our seeing it (noted inline as “removed by the [comment] author”), the rest are intact despite the site owner’s deliberate deletion of all comments.
Here, for your benefit, is the article as of 24 October 2005, 19:25 PT. (PDF, 98kb)
And, misspelling of “Quark Express” and all, is the version of the same article as stored in Google’s cache from 12 October, 2005, 08:46 GMT. (PDF, 139kb)
Update: Quark, Inc. removes link to story from its news site
25 Oct 2005, 23:15 PDT (by Samuel John Klein)
Sometime during the day, 25 Oct 05, Quark, Incorporated removed the link to the story from it’s “In The News” page. The story now at the top of the list is the link to the X‑Ray Magazine promotion.
The article is still posted at the Valor Cross Media site (linked above).
Perhaps since Galina Arlov used this whole exercise as a way to boost link popularity, you could disable direct linking to her blog from this article. Readers could manually copy the URL from this article and paste into their browser so Galina does not receive any more link popularity.
Hi, Jim.
Excellent point. Rather than remove the hyperlink, which impacts readers’ usability, I’ve inserted “rel=‘nofollow’ ” attributes on the links to Galina’s sites. That will prevent at least the major search engines from using Quark VS InDesign.com’s popularity and rankings to increase Galina’s.
Only someone who sports the name “pariah” with a string of failed businesses and nothing important to show for it and a writer of science fiction who has a HORRIBLE website that seems designed by a blind monkey (samuel designed http://www.sciencefictionmuseum.org go check it out and donate some money, he really could use it), goons closely involved with Adobe as we all know you are, could post such a bunch of lies in your website.
In fact it seems obvious that it might have been you who started this whole mess at the Quark website to discredit Quark. Shame on you, Pariah, Oblak, and Klein, what else could be expected from you on a site that benefits directly from Adobe product hype and google adwords in exchange for your hatred, well-stated in your own words?
You are OUTRAGEOUS liars. Note the comments you made in your article. I actually compared what you say and what the writer said and you are shamelessly lying about the content and throwing in dirt of your own. What else could be expected from you, liars? I saved a PDF of your article, just in case you want to change your article and I’ll forward it to the author, because obviously those people they have no idea that they are being backstabbed without the courtesy of being contacted to verify the facts. You even complain that the author FIXED a typo? what are you, morons? was the author supposed to LEAVE the typo????
It stinks of corporate PR and marketing in your website, since you provide so many advertorial-like writing in whatever you write. You even made a product promotion and kissed butt in the middle of your article!! ha!. unbelievable lack of ethics. You guys are just SO wrong.
Reading what you wrote, it’s clear that you aren’t interested in the truth, but only in how to discredit what is obvious fact and is (after a quick check) an acceptable product quote widely found in comparison price websites. You even made an advertising piece for Adobe and ask people to go buy directly at Adobe! Don’t you have any shame, internet marketers? Of course, you must be making money out of these sales… what can we expect?
I was curious about what you wrote and to see what the article was about, and I noticed that you misrepresented and intentionally rewritten stuff that is not even in the article written by the blogger who is being bashed here. You should be ashamed! you should be politicians, because you sure run here a lies machine in your outfit.
After reading what you write in your website, it’s so obvious that you are just a part of the Adobe machine wanting to gobble every single company out there in direct competition with them. Aldus, Pagemaker, now Macromedia and everybody else, what is going to be next? are we supposed to be afraid of Adobe, and as you made it rather evident, you suggest that Quark SHOULD sue Adobe for product dumping. Heck, perhaps they should!
Finally, and much worse, without actually verifying the facts, with no idea of what you are saying (for you acknowledge that you have no idea of what you are talking about) you write that the data must be wrong, but you accept that your affirmation is only hearsay and of your own making without offering any hard evidence, and after printing lies after lies.
What kind of moron makes those kinds of statements? Only you could do something like that, and want your readers to accept as fact something where you don’t even have an idea of what you are talking about, and can’t conclusively prove what you say.
Why is it that ignorants always say that they know better before they even find the truth, and they have to find out they were grossly mistaken after they lose their house? this is the reason why people get murdered for no fault of their own: people don’t care to verify the facts.
This is not the first time you have lied about something and it won’t be the last. after all you are just agents from Adobe seeking to take over whoever opposes you. You like to hide the fact that Adobe is becoming just another big abusive corporation… another Microsoft like the article said.
And you are the grunts doing their dirty work. Shame on you, liars! Don’t you have some decency left? at least READ and verify before you write something? the same could apply to the rest of your site…
Samuel… why don’t you hire a REAL professional to create your website? it’s just yet another shame for you. take it offline… it would look better that way.
As for you, Pariah, you write in your homepage: “First and foremost, Designorati is about passion,†says Publisher and founder, Pariah S. Burke. “Creation is passion, and any writing about, or in support of, passion must itself arise from passion.
What a bunch of lies! “creation is passion, blah,blah, and passion must arise from passion?” lol! coming from a hippie who can’t do anything right, do tell, where did you pick up that line? a bar?
As for you, Jim Oblak, are you the guy who works shooting pics of naked men at a certain website? why don’t you let us know who you are? don’t be shy!
fools!
Dick:
Thanks very much for alerting me to the typo. Much obliged!
I took the time to read the article you are bashing and it is illegal to go around making up stories about others like you people do. I’ve been coming to this site for a long time now and I always have found negative comments from other people in different websites flaming Pariah and this site for one or another reason. This so called “article” is no exception to the rule of encountering biased, incomplete and inaccurate content in this website.
What you write this time not only is biased, misleading and inaccurate, but it is clumsily written with plenty of assumptions and non-sequiturs, much like a not-so-subtle paid PR and marketing article, nothing more. it seemed more like a waiter touting a cheap restaurant and promoting it’s special for the day, while rapping the shop next door. pff… couldn’t you be less obvious?
Reading yet another malicious lie published in your site is infuriating. :(
You are so arrogant and jaded that you don’t care anymore what people think and you write without thinking.
And give me a break, this is not the only time you guys have screwed up. You just keep doing it.
By the way, it should be obvious by now that nobody would be investing their lives into maintaining this website unless you were directly benefitting by your endorsement of Adobe products. That says it all about the kind of biased reviews we find here and how “impartial” they are.
IMHO, you guys are plain wrong and this maliciously written, inaccurate and misleading “article” you published is yet another proof of half-assed, dim-witted penmanship and irresponsible, incoherent damage control PR work paid off by Adobe. Shame on you!
Official Statement of Quark VS InDesign.com’s Editorial Policy Regarding Advertising and Advertisers
Quark VS InDesign.com is an independent and unbiased news and editorial Website that is not affliated with any of the companies about whom or whose products it writes or may write. Nor does Quark VS InDesign.com accept payment, gifts (whose fair market value is in excess of US$20), incentives, or favors from companies whose products are, or may be, reviewed or discussed in editorial content published on Quark VS InDesign.com.
Quark VS InDesign.com is an advertising supported Website, and all advertising on Quark VS InDesign.com is clearly identified as such. This Website does not create or alter editorial in support of advertisers or prospective advertisers, including “advertorials,” special inserts, or product placements. Quark VS InDesign.com voluntarily adheres to the guidelines for ethical separation of editorial and advertising as defined by the American Society of Magazine Editors (ASME).
Disclosures of any professional affiliations held by Quark VS InDesign.com staff that may have bearing on Quark VS InDesign.com editorial are made public in staff biographies. This Website on occassion accepts and publishes articles from non-staff contributing writers. In such cases, all reasonable attempts are made to discover and disclose the relevant professional affiliations of such contributing writers having a bearing on the contributed editorial.
Full disclosure: Some staff members of Quark VS InDesign.com receive complimentary subscriptions to industry periodicals that may be written about in articles published by Quark VS InDesign.com. It is standard practice among the news media to provide complimentary subscriptions to other members of the media. This practice is a professional courtesy only, and does not entail incentive for, requests for, or promises of, editorial coverage or bias.
Shareholder: This Website is privately owned and funded by its publisher and sole shareholder, Pariah S. Burke.
This article is nasty!. The author is outright rewriting the article from the blog and making up stuff that isn’t there! wow! I had never seen anyone go and REWRITE what somebody else said and then start making up stories and based on it. isn’t that defamation? Doesn’t that make this site a defamatory webhole where anyone can come and publish fabrications? in my view, that is immoral and wrong… it makes a farce of the whole argument presented by the article and makes one wonder about the true motives of the author who wrote it.
In addition to this, the “official statement” doesn’t make sense. Your articles are endorsements and disguised advertorials for Adobe products. Your “staff” writes trying to sell the user more Adobe products and this article is a perfect example of that. You are surely being paid off by Adobe, in one or another way. You state that you live off advertising. Who pays for the advertising of Adobe products but Adobe and Adobe product selling companies? that makes you necessarily partial and subject to following the guidelines from these advertisers, or else you would make no money and they would cut you off.
I don’t buy your story and nobody should.
And nobody should visit a site that promotes lies and where the authors and webmasters who write articles are allowed to slander, defamate and falsify information. That is fraud if I have seen one!
you’re a fraud!
For the record, the comments from Dick Sugarman, Nick G., and Mitch M. were all submitted from the same IP address.
This Virginia-based individual has played this ruse on Quark VS InDesign.com before.
Pariah:
I see. That’s just bizarre. What would drive a person to do that?
This has been fascinating experience to say the least. When I first saw the link in the Quark corporate news section, I actually read it kind of eagerly. The idea of Adobe being accused of conniving to undermine the market by “giving away InDesign for free” struck me as an amazing assertion, and I was eager to find out how the logic of that played out. When I read the Arlov article it just struck me as so wide of the mark I almost couldnt not respond.
With no actual disrespect meant toward Arlov and her co-author, the article making the “free InDesign” claim was, to be kind„ dodgy. Now, I’ll admit freely I’m no insider–my cards have always been on the table in this respect–but I don’t think you have to be an insider to have seen that the assertions made in the article were simply wrong.
Was the article a bit mocking? I suppose. But it was in good fun and really not all that insulting of Quark. If anything, the question I had (and still do) is, why would a company like Quark link to such shabby content? I expect better of Quark, and I was gobstopped to see that Quark felt the article was worth linking to at all.
The quality of the responses on this thread from the people (person?) who attacked in leave me in a bit of despair about human nature, as well. Loaded with toxic accusations and bad logic, they do more to generate pity from me toward the poster than anything else, leaving aside the personal threat to life and property embedded in one of them.
The accusations, of course, are so patently ridiculous they deserve (and shall get) no rebuttal. But there is a comment that I think needs to be said.
The accusation seems to be that I/we are somehow compensated shills for Adobe. For what it’s worth, for all the writing I’ve done here, when all was said and done, I had to earn my own money for my copy of CS2 Premium. I am a paid, registered user of CS2, from my own pocket. As I am with QuarkXPress; I have a registered copy of QXP 6.5 that I paid for, with money from actual work.
Therefore, as a paid customer of Quark, Quark’s success is something of an interest to me. Why would I seek to undermine it? Every word I’ve ever uttered about Quark comes from reactions borne of personal experience. I report what I find. I don’t make things up.
I think Quark can do better. I believe it’s trying. I want to encourage them to keep that up.
This one-man-show is just plain funny. Pariah, Samuel, and all your multiple personalities, you know what is fun? you pose questions to yourself, and you answer yourself in the same blog. loll
I’m a consumer, and an user of the software. I think that everyone is entitled to their opinion, not only you. you should not criticize people just because you don’t like the way they think. Particularly when it says clearly in your article that you aren’t certain of what you are saying. To use your own expression, that is asinine and bigoted.
Now if by any remote chances you are really a bunch of guys with nothing better to do with their time, and you all think the way you write, then this website is plain ridiculous, this article has become a faux opera and is giving you really bad publicity. After reading your remarks and seeing that the problems in this forum have been going on for a long while and other people have rebuked what you say, I think that it is not a matter of a one-person problem, and you have trouble with many other people, god knows how many. You are the problem.
you say that people have been having trouble with you for god knows how long. I think it’s disgusting and many people are simply telling you what they think about you. If you feel threatened, why write things that aren’t true? so stop misbehaving and be honest, that way people wouldn’t send you comments unbecoming.
I have been reading this whole article ever since you guys started a war in the Quark forums, because you can’t deny it was you, isn’t it true. You want publicity so desperately, and you got jealous that somebody else got published at Quark and not you. So if you wanted to steal publicity, I think you got it all wrong. people are making some comments about you that BROKE my screen. it’s all about greed and the green-eyed monster of jealousy.
You also come off as women-haters, as you are ganging up on a woman who didn’t do anything to you. I have read some strange comments and articles out there, but I had never seen such a response to any of them. Might it be that a very marked misogynism runs deeply entrenched here at Quark Vs. Indesign? I think so.
Now you are complaining and trying to make your wrong point in a rather apologetical (but still flawed) manner, because you offended someone who knows you for a long time, as it seems apparent from the comments being posted. They actually seem very reasonable given the facts. If you are wrong, you are wrong and you might as well admit it.
The point is that somebody took issue with your mistaken arguments. I read the poster’s comments, the blog in question, and I also found that you are misquoting the author of that blog. Re-read what you wrote and you will find gross inaccuracies that invalidate the whole contents of this laughable exercise in deficient copywriting.
Even worse, you are clear in admitting that you have no idea of why you are wrong. your logic is twisted, and bogus.
I also question this parade of inaccuracies and false logic. Might it be that this website is just a lone author (The Pariah), and the other “characters” are just an invention of his mind?
It is rather obvious that the posters in the forum are, you, you, and you. why people who are so evidently anti-Quark and pro-Adobe
I read your article, the answers that you received, and I also found that in fact you lied in your review. You say that the replies you got are the product of an old enemy (or enemies) of yours? that’s a laughable justification. as for the “same ip address” that sounds fishy to me. publish the addresses? did you know that there are several MAJOR networks being used in the U.S. which correspond to the different CARRIERS providing service? if the people who wrote to you happened to have the same major provider (say AT&T, CA Phone, Verizon, etc.) they all would seem to be from the same network, even when they are in different cities. lol. that’s why you aren’t sure who wrote. get your game together.
I don’t buy what you are saying, because now you are saying that your old enemies are trying to scare you. but that doesn’t make you right. You are still wrong and your article continues to be wrong, after looking at what you have said and what is being said about you. I think it’s just people who are not willing to take it anymore. stop doing things wrong. do things the right way. that way, people would respect you and you wouldn’t have to deal with the comments from your old “enemies”, if there is such a thing.
it is you who ARE wrong.
Long, rambling, senseless posts … all saying the same clueless things …
It’s pretty darned obvious that they’re all from the same person.
“Quark VS InDesign.com is an independent and unbiased news and editorial Website that is not affliated with any of the companies about whom or whose products it writes or may write.â€
If it’s such an unbiased website, how come it has a preponderance of articles advocating InDesign and bashing QuarkXPress way beyond what is stastically normal? Unbiased, my foot.
Good question, Victor. So good, in fact, that I bet you’re not the only reader asking it.
Instead of responding here, where few may see it, I’ve responded in a new article for the benefit of anyone who might be asking the same thing. It’s here.
Since it was asked by someone claiming to be a Dick Sugarman…
Who am I? I am nobody special.
I don’t need to show you a pedigree or a vast portfolio of work. I am nobody except that I use QuarkXPress and InDesign.
If it was not me that alerted Quark’s PR department to the flaky article from Galina Arlov, it would have been someone else. If you have a problem with Quark pulling the silly article from their news section, complain to Quark.
(however, I do feel honored that you like my nudes)
Dudes, I think you have it all wrong. you guys have a website where you are completely partial towards Adobe, there is no denying that. There aren’t really impartial judgements in your website. And this article is a bad attempt at criticizing somebody else. I don’t find anything fascinating in being called liars, fraud, etc. That sucks and gives you an infamous reputation. Do you like that crap?
The Adobe CS2 suite + InDesign runs sooo slow that I could ride a turtle and get anywhere faster anytime I’m running PS CS2+ Illustrator and ID at the same time. And if I’m using Extensis Suitcase, it takes forever and ever to open the CS2 suite. Sometimes I had to wait 5 minutes for it to load, it’s frustrating like you can’t imagine. and please don’t try to suggest solutions, been there, done it all with the technicians. It’s simply the way it is with Adobe CS2 and that cannot be refuted no matter what you say. I’m talking a darn production environment, not the lone writer of letters-to-mom who only runs ID for fun.
I have worked with Quark for many years (and ID) and Quark beats the hell out of ID when it comes to production efficiency in our company, and ID is not the workhorse that Quark + appropriate Xtensions is, we tried it already. Now try converting a Quark file to InDesign. and welcome to hell, because you will have to convert ALL the files in your company to ID.
You know how much MONEY that costs???? can you possibly imagine how much it costs to convert all those files to ID?
How many months of work are involved in moving all of our thousands of quark files to ID, and being forced to redo everything because nothing will look or print right when converting to ID??? you can’t even possible figure it out can you? Did your article consider at all the technical challenges and the real TCO (total cost of ownership) involved in moving to ID? sheesh… you guys aren’t sufficiently educated to know what this means right? let me explain: It means that it costs a hell of a lot of money to convert to ID.
I hate to see sites where people are oblivious to reality. That’s pretty stupid of you and I don’t think that you actually have figured out what it REALLY takes to switch. Here at our company we considered to switch and after evaluating the costs, we decided there was no way in hell we were going to move to ID because it would have taken us beyond 1 year of work and hiring extra designers to convert and fixing our quark files that won’t simply open right in ID. You are obviously ignorant and blind to reality. You’re InDenial, that is evident.
All of the people who I have ever met and who work with InDesign, say the same and that is that unless you have a killer system and a huge screen, Adobe CS2 eats all the system resources and slows you down like hell. The dude who wrote this article uses a DUAL PROCESSOR MACHINE (2 CPUs in his system board) for his “test”, he might do well in actually considering that alot of people use 256mb ram, 1.4 ghz or so processors and CS2 won’t even run in those machines; in fact CS2 won’t even install unless you have more than 384mb ram, which means pretty much everyone needs to buy a new computer. Go check it out, did you try installing CS2 in your computers yet?.
Furthermore, assuming that you had the $3k it costs to buy the computer that runs CS2, (I HAD to buy a new g5 and a pretty large screen in order to run InDesign because all those tabs are a nightmare (and I’m not the only one saying it) to organize on screen unless you have anything beyond 19″, and it costed me $3195 including the warranty, that is just the computer); MANY people have 15″ screens for work (particularly those who work in laptops) and that in those screens, it takes double or triple the time to work with Indesign than it does with Quark, because it’s so cumbersome to find anything among the huge amount of InDesign palettes, that it takes forever to get anything done. You better have a very expensive computer and a huge 21″ screen if you want to work with InDesign, or else you’re screwed. This is specially true with companies, because who cares about the freelancer who cannot afford those expensive computers? not you.
And Jim (and the rest of you), don’t give me your crap that you know better because you don’t. You don’t work in any large corporation and you don’t work anywhere worth mentioning, if you do, then tell where, what do you do, and provide an email and phone where people can reach you, because I ain’t buying it. You don’t know what is the real world either. If you want your comments to be considered as remotely responsible, or if you are trying to make a name for yourself, then take responsibility and have the balls to take a stand and be willing to be accountable for what you say or else you are just a bullsh*tter, and nothing more.
[Additional comments personally attacking another reader removed. –Ed.]
Glue, meet rubber.
Another long, rambling, senseless post. Must be the same IP again.
[Commentary personally attacking another reader removed. –Ed.]
Tom K, the reason no one has refuted your senseless rambling is because it is, well, a senseless rambling.
If you are only running 256 MB RAM, you are best off with Quark 4. Even Quark 6 shows sluggishness on a system this old.
[Commentary personally attacking another reader removed. –Ed.]