Quark Is Dying. Here’s Why
I originally started this as a response to Blind Energy’s comment on my earlier post Quark: Adobe’s Best Friend…
BY Pariah S. Burke
Editor, Quark VS InDesign.com
I originally started this as a response to Blind Energy’s comment on my earlier post Quark: Adobe’s Best Friend. I’m very passionate about this topic—if you had to use Quark and/or InDesign day-in and day-out for years, you’d be passionate about the topic too—and I realized it was a little longer than a comment should be. Hence I’ve given it a post of its own.
Blind Energy’s comment (see the original Quark: Adobe’s Best Friend post for what inspired it):
Quark has a lot of inertia behind it. Don’t underestimate that. That’s is what made the Y2K bug so much of an issue—companies resisted change for as long as possible.
That, added with InDesign’s significant issues with printing (which is vital to the *printing* industry) is going to make it an uphill fight at best.
I don’t underestimate Quark’s inertia; Quark, Inc. overestimates its invulnerability to its own folly.
I wouldn’t even really call it inertia; rather I’d call it roots. Quark is rooted within the industry, but those roots are rotting. Look at Quark’s own forums. Shops are defecting in droves.
No one likes dealing with Quark’s Technical Support and Customer Service divisions. Now consider the extremely foolish statements by Quark’s top brass: The Mac is dying? Quark doesn’t care if anyone switches to InDesign because such a switch would be suicide? The allusion that Quark is throwing in with Microsoft technologies, in the case of XDocs, over the established PDF standard? Now add in the software facts: QuarkXPress, 18 months after OS X is released, is not carbonized and the company will not even assure users that the next version will be; the assertion that the XPress interface and base feature set has worked for ten years, so it won’t change, regardless of what users ask for; it still doesn’t have important features like transparency, easy and cross-product compatible color management system, OpenType support, the ability to handle native PSD and AI files, requiring users to maintain two copies of files (original and TIFF), multiple undo/redo, full preflight including ink management, paragraph-level composition, hanging punctuation, import of competing layout program files, and integrated PDF output (without having to purchase Acrobat seperately); and, InDesign ships with a user guide without charging an extra fifty bucks. Now factor in the price and the user frustration level with the company. Sum it all up and you’ve got a one-product company hell-bent on self-destruction.
Yes, InDesign has printing issues. Not so much in 2.x as it did in earlier versions (if you look closely, many of its printing issues are actually printer driver and OS compatibility issues, especially on OS 10). InDesign’s printing issues are almost moot: InDesign has built in advanced PDF output; if one can’t get a native InDesign file to press, take a PDF.
If one is dealing with a service bureau or press house that is still running systems too old and inefficient to handle PDFs, do it the old fashioned way with a .PS output.
Quark has already lost the magazine industry to InDesign. Even Quark admits to that. What they’re trying to save—incidentally do you think the Quark Publishing System will live up to its billing?—is the newspaper industry’s dependency on QuarkXPress.
Quark is dying, fast. The thing that’s keeping it alive at this point is the inherent nature of the relevant markets: Switching such an integral tool within a fast-paced, tight-margined production workflow is costly in terms of licenses, training, and lost productivity for learning. In this arena InDesign has the upshot of being very similar in user interface to already established tools like Photoshop and (especially) Illustrator. While that fact doesn’t do much for layout-only artists, it does help significantly with migration expenses and issues with artists who use multiple products.
Designers are switching to InDesign in droves. They’ll drive the service bureaus to switch or at least adopt InDesign in addition to Quark. InDesign’s superior features and easier interface, combined with InCopy and its custom implementations, are driving magazines and catalogs to InDesign. Quark still holds sway in newsprint, though, because that industry operates on such a tight timetable and profit margin (the production and editorial departments, I mean) that switching is difficult. I think what will largely decide the turn in newsprint is how well QPS does against InCopy (again, with its workflow-specific implementations from system integrators). The other major factor in the newsprint industries decision will be cost: If Quark and Adobe both maintain their current policies—the former nickel-and-diming, giving terrible support and service, etc., and the latter giving an expectedly complete package backed by good support and service—the prodution department’s cost of maintaining the status quo will eventually outweigh the cost of switching.
I honestly feel Quark is dying, more by its own efforts than by Adobe’s. Adobe just had good timing.
There isn’t even the nostalgia value in Quark that PageMaker inspires to save it.
I’d like to hear comments on this, both for and against (against is more interesting) my assessment of the Quark/InDesign battle.
Very interesting editorial. You don’t think Quark X will come out in time to save it? Or do you think it will be too little, too late?
Cheers,
Gordo
19:19 PT
InDesign rocks!
Anyone that’s used it almost immediately realizes that so I don’t really need to add anything… other than… if you haven’t used it yet get the demo and don’t just take my word for it.
19:54 PT
Thanks for the feedback!
Gordon: I think, even if Quark X arrived tomorrow, it would be too little too late to undo the damage Fred and Quark have done to themselves.
Ronald: Doesn’t it? It’s a breeze to use!
20:36 PT
When Quark X is released, I will be one of the first to purchase it.
Why? Simply because I am a printshop and I need to support all the major programs. Normally I do not purchase ANY new release right away without investigating it. But this new Quark is the exception.
I need as much time possible to troubleshoot Quark before receiving any customer files in it.
Quark will live for one more version at least because of so many waiting for it to use in OSX. Some may be happy with just a carbonized version of 4.1, but I will not unless it has CONSIDERABLE improvements.
InDesign 2 capabilities inspires me to shout from the rooftops for people to swithc over. I feel excited when using the program and feel constricted when having to go back to Quark.
Just the ramblings of a madman
John
20:43 PT
I think your point that many are reluctant to make changes is an important one. Anyone who is in the industry, doing freelance and contracting work will find him or herself in a situation where he’ll need to use InDesign, when that happens, there will be no question which program is better. Once you learn InDesign you’ll kick yourself for not learning it sooner. At least, that’s my $0.02
Many of us have been the power Quark user, fingers rarely leaving the keyboard as pages fly together, but there have always been those problems and features that never came. I won’t say there are no problems with ID but I will say that it’s a pleasure to use and gives me some of the giddiness I used to feel when I first learned to do layout and options seemed endless.
06:37 PT
As much as I agree that InDesign is a superior product, I think Quark’s roots run very deep. I don’t think InDesign is going to deliver a decisive blow against Quark at all unless InDesign 3.0 is something truly spectacular.
How does the quote go? “Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain.” Print houses will still use Quark, as there are gazillons of Quark users out there. Of course, as InDesign becomes more popular, they’ll use that too. But it’s the users in the large companies that are going to make the difference. Until Adobe can crack those, Quark will not wither away.
InDesign does have a lot of nifty features. Adobe needs to focus on replicating as many of Quark’s features as possible, though. InDesign will not win over the hardcore Quark users unless it can do the things they are used to. The fact that InDesign does not do imposition is a major drawback.
I do think Quark has hurt itself quite a bit. But I don’t see a deathblow yet.
08:20 PT
When I fisrst started in page layout back in ‘91, PageMaker was what I learned. Within 2 years, I was a Quark fanatic. I hate dealing with the window-shade interface, and found, once I knew all the keyboard shortcuts, that Quark was the most efficient way to go. I could get the same layout done in a 1/3 less time. My biggest problem with InDesign, and I admit I haven’t used it much, is that I feel I am regressing back to the PM days with the windowshade mentality. It is clunky at best. I have bad feelings about Quark and OSX. I don’t think that anything more than a botched Carbon job will be what they release, as is par with the past few years.
My hope is to see software come out that is the best of both worlds. InDesign does have it’s advantages. And so does Quark. I want the interface of Quark with the tools and options of InDesign. Then you’d see me switch. Right now I can only sit back and wonder what is to become of my industry.
I am debating a move into the video world…
09:19 PT
I think asking “how well QPS does against InCopy” is off-target. QPS is not something new; it is over a decade old and has a very large installed base (including MANY magazines, not one of which I know of has switched to InDesign.)
InCopy is an OEM-only product being incorporated into systems competitive with QPS. (Adobe’s own in-house project died, after much fanfare when announced a few years ago, and InCopy can only be found in third-party offerings such as those from DTI and SoftCare.)
As such, it is more accurate to judge those systems by their merits compared to QPS, rather than InDesign and InCopy. The fact is that at this point there have been no significant inroads against QPS, which still leads the market, and that many thousands of seats at major publishers are on QPS and thus that much more resistant to change.
10:17 PT
I am a *book* designer and typesetter, with somewhat different requirements from jobbers or magazine and newspaper users. Letterpress is all-important in my work. When I began desktop layout in 1989, I couldn’t even think of using Quark because it could only output to a directly connected printer, but I needed to be able to take PostScript files to a high-res imagesetter. At that time and for a very long time afterwards PageMaker was also miles ahead of Quark in matters of kerning and letterspacing. Quark’s handling of letterpress was abysmal compared to PageMaker’s, and for that reason alone I stuck with PM until InDesign came out (I did try FrameMaker at one point, but it didn’t do what I needed any better than PageMaker).
I am thrilled to pieces with multi-line composition, the single chief item on my wishlist for years. I miss only two things from PageMaker, both of them trivial in comparison: fancy rules and paragraph-style tagging. I do not expect ever to consider moving to Quark.
13:43 PT
John and SDAMOT:
I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve used Quark for over ten years now. I know all the esoteric keyboard shortcuts and am actually quite productive with Quark. With InDesign, however, I’m really productive.
I didn’t need to learn new shortcuts; many of them I already knew from Photoshop and Illustrator. The rest, well there’s a little migration guide in the program for those who want a faster way of converting from Q to ID.
I still use Quark. As a professional designer who takes and sends jobs to various places who haven’t yet seen the light :-), I need to maintain compatibility.
I believe that, as John pointed out, that will be one of the two major factors that drive sales of the next version of Quark, whether carbonized or not. Designers and especially service bureaus and presses will need to maintain maximum compatibility with their clients.
The other factor, in my opinion, will be the point Blind Energy made: Switching a mission-critical app like the layout program will be difficult for many large companies.
Let’s face it, most of our industry hates change. Designers always go for the latest and greatest (I mean no offense by this), while the production people—strippers, pressman, etc.—stay with what works for as long as possible. The costs and down-time are difficult to justify if the workflow already in place works. That side of the industry will upgrade with Quark if they can’t get away with staying with Quark 5 or even4.1.
BTW, I’m a designer, yes. But I’ve owned a service bureau and I’ve worked on staff at magazines, newspapers, directory publishers, etc. Yeah, I like the latest and greatest tools with which to express myself, but I also understand the production and business sides of the industry.
17:15 PT
Blind Energy:
At this point, following Fred’s comments and his spectacular leadership of Quark, Inc., I don’t think Adobe has to do much to kill Quark but sit back and wait. I think Quark is doing itself in.
Granted, the BuildBooklet script in InDesign is not the greatest imposition feature in the world, but the InBooklet plugin does a nice job.
Send a feature request to Adobe. I’ve submitted “more robust imposition feature” (and more specific descriptions) several times. If the improvements in 2.0 over 1.0 and 1.5 are anything to go by, Adobe listens to feature requests.
17:21 PT
Robert Z:
I misspoke (mistyped?). I didn’t mean to imply that QPS was new and unproven.
I think what happened to InCopy is a good thing. Rather than leave it to the users to figure out how to use the full feature set of InCopy, now system integrators create custom applications using InCopy’s ala carte components. They can build a system to a specific workflow rather than trying to adapt the workflow to the system.
What I would like to see is InCopy 2.0 available as a standalone app in addition to the workflow-specific systems. A standalone would be useful to smaller publishers—for example a regional weekly tabloid—that doesn’t need a full-blown system from DTI or other SI.
17:26 PT
That prompted me to send a feature request for a standalone InCopy 2.0 (or 2.5 or 3.0) for smaller publishers.
17:27 PT
Robert Allison:
Thanks for the post.
I started out with PageMaker 3. I’m still fond of it, in a nostalgic sense, though Quark and especially InDesign blow it out of the water.
My favorite PageMaker feature was the story editor. InCopy gives that to InDesign, but I hope the next version of ID has a story editor on its own.
I’m curious: Other than the way textboxes/frames are handled, what other Quark interface features would you like to see in ID?
17:32 PT
Jeff:
Interesting. You’ve stuck with PageMaker all along?
As a typesetter, what do you think of InDesign’s OpenType features?
17:34 PT
One thing I like baout Quark is the ability to change between text and images in a box. I like to be able to lay down a series of boxes, then change the content type.
We also use Expert Layers, and use extensive scripting.
The few InDesign jobs that I ran through our pre-press department had a couple of color and font issues, but I know that use could have solved any work arounds.
What I would LIKE to see is a design interface that can be customised to work in MY style, whether it is more of a free-flow, or a rigid documentation style. I don’t want to go backwards, or even sideways to a different program. I want something that takes full advantage of OSX, allows for image effects native, transparencies, etc, all on-the-fly, all WYSIWYG.
I know I am asking for quite a bit, but if I am to relearn software, I would rather relearn something that will allow me to achieve my highest creative potential without having to jump between 4 or 5 different programs.
Just my thought…
11:46 PT
Robert:
I often do the same thing with frames: draw a bunch of generic frames for rough placement then add their content, either image or copy. I do it in InDesign even more easily than I do it in Quark.
Draw a frame with the rectangle tool (the blank box icon). Voila! There’s your generic frame. If you click inside it with the Text tool it becomes a Text frame. If you select it with the black arrow and hit CMD+D (CTRL+D) or File > Place, and drop in an image, it becomes an image frame.
As far as customizing the whole user interface… Maybe I don’t understand what you mean, but that sounds pretty far off for any program. Maybe if software were entirely compenont-based—a generic wrapper program and snap-in functionality… Maybe I’m missing your point.
12:43 PT
It is probably far off. I guess I am thinking outside of the “print media” box. Look at how Final Cut Pro works. You bring in all your media, from sound files, animations, video clips, etc, and drag and drop in place as you would like to see it. You can edit transitions on the fly, create masks, adjust transparency, etc. Take that mentality out of video, and use it for print media. I really don’t think it would take all that much to shift from FCP into a page layout format. I think that this mentality would make our job so much easier.
I know I am over simplifying this. There are many issues to work out. However, i don’t think that either Quark or InDesign are going to use the full capabilities of OSX and the Quartz technology that drives the graphics.
I guess it comes down to this with me: I am going to have to learn some new software. That is given. I would like to learn software that is far beyond what I already have, instead of just a bettter version of what I already have. Look at all the early web design softwares out there. Instead of hand coding or Front Page (where I see Quark and InDesign right now), I want to move to a Dreamweave/Flash level. Get where I am trying to go with this?
I have been in this industry too long to moe just one-up. I want to be way ahead of the curve.
Just my $.02…. :)
12:59 PT
I’ll have to check out Final Cut Pro. I haven’t dabbled in video yet.
I just picked up After Effects, but my interest in it is more for DVD-menu, titling, and web animation work. I’m a print designer at heart, but I’m trying to broaden my skillset.
19:35 PT
I’m not nearly on the professional level as you guys are, as I am just a Digital artist/Photographer pretending to be a designer ;)
Anyways most of my money making comes from page layout/boring projects that deal with a lot of text and litle creativity… Quark has poisoned me (what I jokingly call it), I found myself often accidentily using quark shortcuts in Adobe and Macromedia products… I used it that much I guess O_o
I first used InDesign with version 1.5 and I, quite frankly, found it to be a weak effort, all I heard about were print issues etc etc
Indesign 2.0 rolled around and I gave it a second chance… and WOW, I absolutely love this program. I cannot believe how good this program is for the designer… it makes things SO much easier… and (the big one here) ALOT more freedom to the designer.. Quark was way too limiting, and InDesign has provied the keys to freedom…
But…
The only thing keeping me from using InDesign exclusively are the whispers and rumors I hear about InDesign having print problems etc.. But I still have never gotten a straight answer from anyone actually in the print industry…
What issues does InDesign 2.0 really have? Are they just rumors? The only problems I’ve ever run into is the fact that the print house doesnt have InDesign… and in that case I send them a .pdf and occasionally (rarely) they don’t like .pdfs because they arent as adjustable as a native file from the program (like quark etc)
so what is truly holding InDesign back in the print industry? Does it really have printing problems still? Or is it just lack of support?
Thanks :)
12:49 PT
To be completely honest, Jason, the print problems are usually due to 2 factors in my experience.
First of all, each print system, whether a laser printer, film imagesetter, or DTP system, needs to have calibration and print settings created for each application that is going to drive it. Usually, the prepress group brings everything out of the norm (Illustrator, Freehand, Photoshop files) into the main program (usually Quark) and outputs from there to be sure to take advantage of the proper color and print configs. When new page layout software is used, the new configuration is often defaulted to the factory settings so that little time is required to get the film or plates out. Until the new software is used enough, the configuration is left at default, making the final product less than desireable, hence “print issues”. It just doesn’t look as good after press.
Secondly, the printing industry opposes change until it really starts hurting their pocket book. I have worked for large print shops who still use sysem 8 with Quark 3.3 (as of last year), because they had trapping issues going to Quark 4. On some film systems like Delta RIP, the reference plate for trapping was based on the order of plates coming through, not the actual color. Quark 3.3 sent plates through in CMKY order, and the reference plate was set to plate 4, the K plate. when Quark 4 came out, they changed the order. the new order became KCMY. DeltaRIP and a few other systems were trapping everything using Yellow plate as the base, instead of black, so they refused to change.
Most of us live in a world where we try to keep up with the latest and greatest, but when it comes to the print world, they want to get the most out of every piece of hardware and software, to keep expenses to a minimum. Printing is cut-throat, and every dime saved means the ability to outbid the other guy up the street. And they know if they receive it in the tried and true software, they will have fewer issues meeting the deadlines.
Just a few observations from the dark side of the fence… I hope this has helped… :)
06:24 PT
I guess the majority of commens here are gonna be pro-ID given the title. However, I have been using Quark (3 an then 4) for the past six years, mainly for magazine work and have recently downloaded the InDesign 2 trial from the net as the .exe Quark file on my PC got corrupted and I am in South America and dont have access to my isntall disks. Ouch! I have emailed Quark ’suppodrt’ (curiously based in Switzerland) but as usual you get nil response from them—not cool Quark I spent £,000 on your products over the years. When they do respond it will no doubt be “we can’t help …. bla, bla,” or other such negative statement.
Straight up my impression of ID was that it was more powerfull and more rounded product. Hey and you work looks better on screen too!
I am currently working on a job that is going into x different languages and ID’s Unicode support makes all the diffence to me. (Quark wants £1,200 per language version of Pssport which just isn’t feasible), wheras ID has proper Unicode support out of the box! (for Mac users I am PC based and Quark doesnt support Unicode on PC).
So what am I gonna do? Im gonna buy ID2 and save the £1,000’s I would otherwise have spent with Quark and whilst I am at it finally move over to Apple (one of those nice Powerbook G4’s will do me sir), which I have been wanting to do for years but having spent the £800 on Quakr for PC was always put of by the expense of doing so!
Antonio
06:01 PT
I am neither for nor against either Quark or ID. Both have various positive and negative points. Quark’s service and willingness to “keep up” is severely short of the mark. ID is different enough for the mainstream print arena to balk at the conversion.
I will learn ID. I will need to. I am not ready yet to dedicate the time, as we are not in a position to switch to ID in my current shop. The cost of training and licenses of 30+ people is not feasible at this point. But then again, with Quark acting the way they are, it may be the only option available when it gets down to the bottom line.
I just would like to go slap the Quark powers that be, and tell them to catch a clue. :)
12:02 PT
Antonio:
I’ve heard from other designers about the “special” upgrade pricing for Xpress and Passport. It’s ridiculous. I don’t know if they did this abroad, but here in the U.S. Quark was running a special a short time ago offering a printed user manual for only an additional $50 US. What a deal!
THAT is poor management and lack of respect for customers. Even Corel Ventura comes complete with a manual… At no extra charge.
Thanks for contributing your input to the discussion.
18:16 PT
Robert:
I bet there are some Quark employees (and their families) who would also very much like to slap the Quark powers that be and tell them to catch a clue.
The cost of switching, exactly what you’re talking about, is what I feel is the primary (and nearly only) thing that will keep Quark alive through its next version.
I predict Quark 6 will sell in the mediocre numbers (if they carbonize; much less if they don’t), but Quark 7 will tank. If they continue development beyond 7, I think it will go the route of PageMaker: Quark will continue as a small niche market product for those closed workflows that don’t have to worry about keeping up with the industry, and that don’t wish to incur the costs of migrating and retraining.
That’s just my opinion, of course.
18:22 PT
Pariah, yeah I heard abou the manuals business, crazy.
Just getting into the compostion tools in ID—much better improved than Quark. And 12 languages out of the box—hyphenation and all!
£1,000’s saved.
Antonio
14:02 PT
Well, ya know, print is dead anyways, so what’s the point?!?! LOL!
12:22 PT
Oh, and PCs are more and more stable… :)
I know our industry will begin to decline in the format it now heavily operates in, aka the print to paper segment. Our tools need to be able to jump us into electronic publishing, as well as whatever the next generation of document distribution that is created, and maintain our quality AND creativity.
If Quark gets a PERFECT product onto market really soon, they have a chance of keeping a core group for the long haul. However, if the next release is ANYTHING like the prior ones, Quark will not be able to get back a following. Bottom line, even the giants fall when they are too big for their own britches. AVID is starting to fall to Final Cut Pro, even in the cinematography arena. AVID is too expensive (to rent even!), and Final Cut does the same, if not more. Another dinosaur becoming extinct.
Oh, well. Keeps life interesting…
12:34 PT
Ayup. Even the giants fall. Look at what happened to IBM in the eighties.
23:21 PT
Or what happened to Wordperfect!
08:43 PT
Did any of you have the pleasure of using Framemaker, or even better Ventura Publishing?
05:33 PT
Framemaker? Yup, I’ve used it. Nice program.
06:49 PT
I took a Quark class and came away with positive impressions. We have a number of Macs here and my PC. So I ordered Quark 6 XPress and learned that activation is good on only one machine. If you have a laptop or home computer, forget about installing it on both.
Can’t be done. Quark has activation so locked up so tight that cracks or workarounds will never be found. I bought mine and can put it only on ONE computer, not my laptop.
Quark has apparently concocted this policy:
“Quark is in the process of setting up a special program for users who want to use QuarkXPress on both their desktop and laptop computers. The program will have additional fees and services to accommodate such users.”
Fees, right! So today I canceled our office’s order for 18 Mac Quarks and are switching to Adobe’s InDesign 2. Can’t do much about my own Quark copy, but I’ve got the case stuck up on my wall to remind me not to do such stupid things. It always pays to check the fine print.
The day Quark files for Chapter 11 will be a day of celebration. Why people still buy programs by abusive, arrogant companies like this is a mystery.
13:42 PT
Hallelujah, brother! Hallelujah!
Welcome to the freedom of InDesign!
19:18 PT
The information you put in this post has been of great help. I consult with many Small Businesses who work with differnt Press Shops. They’ve been asking. “why do I have to switch over to Quark Express since it’s unfriendly and does not play well with other programs?”
After researching InDesign and Quark, I defiently agree with your posting as it brought out many valuable insigths. I now know which program to recommend to work directly and indirectly with older press shops.
InDesign all the way :)
Thank you very much,
Chad
11:16 PT
The information you put in this post has been of great help. I consult with many Small Businesses who work with differnt Press Shops. They’ve been asking. “why do I have to switch over to Quark Express since it’s unfriendly and does not play well with other programs?”
After researching InDesign and Quark, I defiently agree with your posting as it brought out many valuable insigths. I now know which program to recommend to work directly and indirectly with older press shops.
InDesign all the way :)
Thank you very much,
Chad
11:36 PT
Chad,
Excellent! I’m glad my humble site has been of help—especially in helping to break the stranglehold in which Quark has held the design and printing industries.
20:09 PT
I stumbled on this site by accident and have read your rantings and disagree on many points. I run a prepress department and I’ve used Quark since version 2. I have also been involved as an Adobe Solutions Provider in pre-release evaluations and feedback of InDesign since version 1.
I agree—we ALL hate Quark (the company) and their awful policies and support (or lack of) BUT… it is still far superior in terms of speed, ease of use and user interface. ID’s interface is a huge sprawling mess—you need two monitors just to show a healthy portion of the often used palettes. Quarks interface on the other hand is built on tabbed dialog boxes where you can reach all of the related areas of function with the keyboard. I can preflight and repair documents in one fifth of the the time that it takes in ID (and yes, I do know and use all the keyboard shortcuts—they’re just not as logical and well laid out).
As a designer, I really do like ID’s feature set—transparency is really cool BUT as a technician, I can tell you that sometimes those beautiful designs just won’t RIP.
I really don’t want to go on at length. I love Adobe and their engineering. I hate Quark and their pigheadedness. But in the the printing industry, time is money and ID is just too slow to use on a large scale. I’m rooting for them but still prefer Quark’s leaner, faster and every bit as capable interface more. ID’s huge feature set has caused lots of problems in printing (but this may be due as much to designers who don’t know what they’re doing).
16:35 PT
InDesign is starting to look pretty good!
As 2nd yr Graphic Design studen, I don’t have as much exp. as you all seem to, but with the delays caused by Quark’s “bugs”, ID seems like a solution.
From a students point of view, I think Q X is holding us back (OK, we’re learning to deal with technical problems but enough is enough ). All 19 students have encountered almost every possible problem:
-…can’t find the network hardware key (right term?)
-choppy doc. and image preview, qx is slow or frozen
-pages appear anywhere in the doc. repeatedly even after deletion
-several pages dissapearing (once missed a deadline cause I had to start over)
-we all forget to save our docs in single language so we can work on them @ home
Everyone in our class is pushing the teacher to switch to ID, he tries to defend QuarkX. But even HE is sick of their poor costumer service/technical support. He’s been trying to contact them (I think about the latest version) since september. When he does speak to someone he gets frustrated, he can tell they don’t value their customers.
I saw classmates use ID, I love the preview, the layers like in PS and ill, the same shorcut keys (I get impatient when I forget to use the right shortcuts in Quark) and no hassle with image formats!!
I ‘m anxious to try it out, but I just hope the “printing issues” will be corrected in the next version of ID (there’s gotta be a way to get around those—I haven’t come to understand them yet).
August
21:13 PT
Jeep:
Thanks for posting your opinion. Of course I like it when people agree with my opinions, but the only interesting conversation is when people don’t agree and can educate one another in the process.
How did you stumble in? I’m very curious how people find me.
I disagree. I know the Quark UI about as well as anyone who has had used it professionally for over a decade. I know it, but I hate it. The design and function of the UI is counterintuitive to the way humans work, despite the volumes of data from scientific studies about how humans use computers. Quark, the company, doesn’t care about its customers, and the software is the second biggest testament to that fact—their customer service philosophy is the first, of course.
The primary reason Quark has remained market leader for so many years is because it was the only game in town. PageMaker never caught up again after Quark passed it. That got it entrenched. We all know Quark’s quirks and how to work around them. And we all know how to make it do things it really shouldn’t. Do you think the Quark engineers really thought XPress would be used as a pre-RIP, a platform into which to place PageMaker, FrameMaker, and other files exported to EPS or PDF, then from XPress printed to PS or exported to PDF again? QuarkXPress is ubiquitous. There isn’t a single creative, press, or pre-press shop in the land that doesn’t have QuarkXPress. If one wants to work in any of those industries, one must know Quark.
The closer one’s job gets to an imagesetter and RIP, the smaller the profit margin and the higher the short-term financial impact of changing the workflow. Thus the more pervasive the ideology—from Production through Finance—that change is bad. Quark exists in that world, the world that doesn’t want—with sensible but ultimately futile reasons—to change. Even RIP manufacturers are hesitant to change their RIPs to accomodate the inevitable and cumulative next step in technology of which InDesign is only a part.
After all these years, we still don’t have a universal job ticketing system. If the attitude isn’t that change is bad, it becomes wait and see what everyone else does first.
Adobe has never subscribed to either philosophy (though they were rather late getting onboad the Web). Adobe initiates change, forcing other industry suppliers to change. I can easily cite PostScript, soft fonts, Illustrator, PDF, and so on. Adobe innovates. Quark stagnates.
Adobe invests in making the industry better. Quark invests in keeping things the same.
What RIP? Which level of PostScript? I’m curious if it’s one of the many RIPs that have been “optimized” for Quark’s “PostScript Plus”, or if it’s an InDesign issue. InDesign writes clean PostScript, which I know gives Quark-optimized RIPs problems with some content.
I can definitely see some issues with RIPs not updated recently if the linked assests are PSDs or AIs rather than the traditional TIFFs or EPSes.
You’ve been in the business a while. You know it’s the rare designer who understands what happens at your end. You’re lucky if they have any concept of trapping.
I think, however, that InDesign CS could actually help with some of that. The Separations and Trapping Preview palettes might just be the thing to get designers thinking about some of the issues faced in-RIP. I’m curious about other issues, though.
I didn’t respond to some points—and cut short my responses to others—because I felt as if I were repeating myself. I’ve expressed my counterpoints to your points above. I would like to hear more of your opinions and experience, though. Please do share.
And thanks again for taking the time to discuss.
20:26 PT
August:
Thanks for stopping in. Yeah, Quark’s customer service and technical support is world reknowned as horrendous. From what I’ve heard, it’s the worst among the entire software and computer hardware industries.
I keep hearing about phantom printing issues with InDesign that no one can tell me how to replicate. I have no issues with it unless I send it through a low-end RIP. Some of the issues are legitimate, but I think many of the alleged issues are the same kind of hysterical, fear-driven rantings Chicken Little’s will always scream about.
August, don’t take anyone’s word about printing problems with InDesign—or with Quark for that matter. Many people who rant about terrible, show-stopper printing problems from InDesign have never actually tried to print from InDesign. Try it yourself. Grab the free evaulation copy of InDesign from Adobe.com. It’s a full, working version; there’s no limitation on the software other than a thirty-day timeout. Then try printing for yourself. Make your own decision.
Given the way things are going—mass and major media defections to InDesign, the press gushing reviews and awards all over InDesign, the business practices of Quark, Inc.—by the time you earn your degree, InDesign probably will be the standard, and Quark will be a fading legacy tool like OS 9. If your degree program doesn’t offer a class in InDesign, you’re going to be missing a critical skill when you go looking for that first internship or job.
If your school won’t train you in InDesign, do your career a favor and learn it on your own. The InDesign Classroom In A Book is a good start I hear (I haven’t seen it myself). Total Training produces some really good instructional DVDs and videos, too. It looks like they just released this week videos for the Adobe CS products. You should also check out the Adobe InDesign CS Course Guide.
21:10 PT
Quark is junk. Once I started working on InDesign there was no going back. Never had a problem viewing on screen (it’s 2004, why does Quark still render graphics like crap?), exporting PDF’s or printing. All the service bureaus I know are using it and I will continue to as well. More options, more flexibility and a very small learning curve. I cannot wait for the day Quark goes away forever. It has always sucked and I never understood how or why it became the standard. Death to Quark—and soon!
13:01 PT
It became the standard because it was more powerful than PageMaker, and Aldus was too slow in updating PageMaker and building K2 (InDesign) to provide Quark with much competition for the entire decade of the ’90s.
Now the guard is changing.
09:14 PT
It became the standard because it was more powerful than PageMaker, and Aldus was too slow in updating PageMaker and building K2 (InDesign) to provide Quark with much competition for the entire decade of the ’90s.
Now the guard is changing.
09:15 PT
I agree that Quark is dying. I have to admit I am surprised it has taken this long. Quark’s tech support is abysmal, as are the features offered in the software. Word has better features for God’s sake. THAT is sad.
I am running into an issue with my old(but “reliable”) copy of version 4. I am trying to reinstall it on a laptop, but I do not have access to a floppy drive. Guess what. It won’t install without one. Thanks Quark for wasting even more of my time.
Macromedia needs to come out with DTP software. It would kick the crap out of Quark and Adobe both. And I would love to have ringside seats. Affordable software that actually works. What a concept.
17:06 PT
Hi, John.
That’s terrible about your laptop situation. You can’t borrow an external floppy drive?
Macromedia has made it abundantly clear that they’ve given up competing in the creative-print market. Macromedia is all about being the creative-market go-to company.
17:51 PT
Hi, you asked how your visitors have stumbled upon your website? Well I was googling for a solution for some bugs/crashes in quark. Looks like I’ve found one ;)
This was a very interesting read and made me think about how limitating Quark can actually be.
It’s going to be interesting to use a program without so much need (by the sound of it) to detour over to Photoshop every 5 minutes to work-around limitations. (adobe should pay Quark commision!!)
Thanks for the advice everyone, I’m going to download the 30-day trial and see what all the fuss is about.
I know I might seem a little out-of-date, It’s been two years since I’ve worked seriously as a graphic designer, but would like to get up to speed and start again.
17:07 PT
Quark could not complete their own porting development for OSX. Steve Jobs sent over 7 programmers (begrudgingly) to finish the development of Quark 6. Apparently the Apple programmers were not happy about being pushed over to Quark. A company that publicly wasn’t going to support OSX 2 years earlier.
I have never used software that keeps getting worse as it is revised. Even Microsoft Windows is getting better year to year (as much as it still sucks). The last straw was having to repurchase fonts that didn’t work with Quark in OSX. They worked fine on every Adobe application we had. We have since switched to In Design CS and have never looked back.
Quark has spent more time trying to incorporate web tools than making a reliable prepress program. Who uses Quark to build websites anyway? Every developer I know uses Dreamweaver and Flash. They have treated their customers very second rate and have not introduced any new technology. In Design is in line to steal the entire market away from them, rightfully so.
15:27 PT
As a Tech Support specialist for the publishing industry- I have to say- I LOVE Quark. I Love that it’s laden with problems for Windows users– and heaven forbid you want to layout mulitple languages (2 bit fonts on a Windows platform! Hah!) I Adore the hours I’ve gotten to bill clients for repair broken file headers- or configuring sharing systems on networks. And I really appreciate those special, “We have 4 hours to deadline and our library is corrupted again!” calls… That’s usually triple time for me!
All of this, because Quark is weakest in what we all know: Documentation and Support. Sometimes, walking into a publisher with sheets decoding Quark’s mysterious error codes is enough to earn adolation from production personel…
ID takes this to a new level for me– I can’t tell you how many classes for “Quark to InDesign” I’ve held in the past few months.
Now, as a designer: (Yes, I’m more than just a really good geek) I’ll admit- I still play around in Quark 5… For me, that’s what it is– play- quick and dirty little abstract layouts– I could do it PS or ID just as well, but I already have my Wacom programmed to take advantage of my style and need for shortcuts in QX… When I’m actually putting a job together- I’m in IDCS. Hands down. The best I’ve ever seen.
10:43 PT
Adobe CS cant even pass the quality control mechanism in place at Quark.I t would be rejected at the first place. So i am not sure if its worth comparison with XPress.
21:30 PT
Quark is quark and always it will be there. becz even a kid can understand how to make a desktop page more than in a Indesign. The freedom that exist in Quark not exist in inm design. Yes i will say there are few bugs yin this that will effect in printing area .
The main thing that the output to different drvis not work properly i am not saying all but a few drivers in color function is giving error. The advantage fro in design is that it has it’s won printer driver(spooler) for every plotform. There will bre a syncronisation probnlem with qurk in these area. They still forgot to implement the drag and drop process inquark if the done..
I WILL SAY QUARK WILL BE A LEADER IN DTP.
00:32 PT
its very nice site having lot of detail about the product of both compny.
i agree with the author that Quark is dying due to its own reasons and very bad customer support services.I am 100 % sure that adobe product catch up whole market of Quark very soon.
12:54 PT
InDesign leaves Quark in the dust. Working as a Print Broker and a Graphic Designer, Im starting to see more and more books and magazines created in InDesign. I only bought Quark to do basic typesetting, usely from a document that is very old I feel like I have to sneaze beacuse It feels like dust is coming out from the Quark document. Everything that I layout will now be done in InDesign because I dont want to waste anytime.
20:40 PT
There were many things that did it. Far too many to count. But one of the best was the ‘OPEN QUARKXPRESS DOCUMENT’ function in InDesign.
This just exemplifies the difference between the two programs. One is closed and insular (Quark), the other is open and collaborative (InDesignCS). Adobe has shown again and again, with PDF for instance, that it understands what people want to do…and that isn’t spend hours dealing with import and output issues. They haven’t tried to reinvent the wheel…they’ve just put together a graphics package that allows the user to do everything out of the box. After years struggling with Quark it has been heaven on earth to use InDesign. Add to this the fact that the entire Creative Suite licence comes for less than the price of Ouark…
well…
15:00 PT
As a newcomer to the publishing process in the late ’90s, I got started with PageMaker, but heard that Quark was more powerful overall. Meanwhile, Adobe was creating big hype about InDesign. I went to the product launch and managed to crash a demo mac running InDesign beta. So I knew it had a way to go.
But I could also see that Adobe’s approach might make InDesign a winner in the long haul. They were begging for feedback. InDesign at 1.0 wasn’t even up to par with some things PageMaker could do at the time. It was only playing catch-up to XPress. But it showed potential o f growing up to be a respectable application.
When I landed a magazine design contract job, I was supplied with QuarkXPress 6 running on OSX. I liked the program over PageMaker, but some things seemed a little old-fashioned. Then, after several magazines had gone to print, we decided to try one in InDesign, just to see how it might compared. Because the publisher was having problems getting into InDesign that quickly, the next issue was done in Quark.XPress I can honestly say that I hated to go back to XPress. It was something like stepping out of a BMW and having to drive an old Ford truck.
WIth XPress 6.5, I got the distinct impression that Quark was the one now playing catch-up (whose idea was it to let you place native PSDs—and of course Adobe could do it better). With what I read of version 7, that trend appears to be continuing. It’s fascinating to me that in about 5 years, Adobe has driven its product so well that the tables have turned so dramatically.
19:48 PT
I’ve used Quark and InDesign. They both suck.
21:47 PT
InDesign CS2 is great, I think it’ll be pretty tough for Quark to keep the market.
If you don’t like QUARK or INDESIGN which program DO you like?
18:50 PT
I’m so tired of Quarks activation routines I’ve finally announced that our department whishes to no longer recieve any Quark documents.
08:44 PT
I don’t consider myself an expert on the subject of page layout programs… but XPress as it stands, simply belongs in one place: the bin!!! You only have to use QXP6 and then IDCS2 to see that! Its not just the fact it looks so aged… but ID has some FANTASTIC features!
If you consider new people coming into the industry or learning design and layout for the first time, they are gonna both enjoy and have a much easier time with the friendly and fun indesign.
I’m not a design pro… but indesign is a pleasure to use… quark is not… and I think quark are gonna need to pull a complete miracle out of the bag on this one…
05:40 PT