Quark 7 is even worse for this.

I have many greivances with poorly trained new designers who use these effects and in-built PDF generators without any awareness of what needs to happen to a file once it leaves their pampered hands. The reason we (and many others) still use Quark 6.5 (or even 5) is because it works, reliably, without it’s output being mangled by imagesetters (do new designers even know what those machines are?).

There are good reasons why native PSD/AI files should NEVER be embedded directly into DTP programs, not least of which is the mess that results when it’s time to print it professionally (as opposed to laser-ing it). There is a lack of education about the reasons why say flattened TIFF files are preferred over PSD and it seems as though Adobe and Quark have been trying to outdo each other to see who could impliment this fastest and bestest.

Quark is dying, this is true. But I cannot see InDesign being it’s replacement in the UK, giving that we have a very high PDF orientated workflow and InDesign just messes that up, a lot.

On the other hand Adobe is giving away its Plug-Ins development kit for free, and allowing developers to enhance, market, and sell Adobe’s products Plug-Ins with no restrictions whatsoever.

That says it all.

I think the bigger issue is how Adobe has strong armed the industry. I love Adobe and all their products, however in my case I work for ad agency that has clients with their own internal marketing departments. Since these internal marketing departments for our clients don’t have much money to upgrade hardware/software, they go with the the Adobe bundle because of the price point, not necessarily because it’s the right application for what they need. They are not able to go back and ask for another $800 for Quark. So…Now, our clients are dictating to us, that if we want to work with them, all of the working files have to be in InDesign. So now the CLIENT IS DICTATING what application we must use. Our policy is the client legally only pays for the end product, and are not entitled to the working files, so with that said we could build stuff in publisher if we wanted and it should not matter to the client. HOWEVER, times are changing, budgets are getting squeezed, so clients want to do alot of the work themselves. So we have to turn over files in the proper format. For that, I HATE ADOBE has allowed clients to DICTATE to us, what apps to use. Mark my words, we’ll all see this happen again, when Apples Keynote takes over PowerPoint and account exec are all pissed because they have to switch to keynote, just because Apple will have a bigger share of the pie.

But to sum things up, I think Quark has dropped the ball, and that is unfortunate. So instead of bickering like the Mac and PC guy on the TV spots, lets share knowledge for both applications, and if the entire industry switches 100% to InDesign, so be it. But let’s work together, instead of arguing which app is better than the other, that gets no one anywhere!!!

you could look at this as a sign of great software design. if only all software was legal, prices would drop.

For me the biggest sign Quark is dying (or dead already?) is because you cannot find any cracks or serials of Quark 7.+. The last crack/serial that is widely available is for the 7 beta version… All version thereafter… nada.
Besides that, serials/cracks for the latest updates and version on Indesign/CS3 are very easy to obtain within days after a release…

You’ve got a point… why would i need to load an extension to do dropped shadows or any other native item that is built into quark. kinda like indesign… it’s built in… but it took quark 2 whole itterations past Indesign to put it in.

another key point… why would i want to pay $749.00 to do the same thing that i could pay Buy US$699 for… granted, that’s only a $50 difference, but when you consider, i can purchase the entire CS3 suite and get much more for a bundled rate ($1,799 or 299 per title)… i guess you’re right… i might as well spend an extra 750 to get a piece of software i’ve already got… Why? because there are 3 times per year i get a quark file. and those 3 times, i would prefer to tell them to send me a pdf and a collected quark CD so i can just rebuild the document.

but to your point of why i want quark to die… it’s simple… i don’t. I honestly don’t care. But when someone sends me a QX file, I will charge them more for the work… because it takes 2x longer to do.

QX needs to figure out that they’ve lost the race… i think it would be a good idea for Microsoft to scoop up QX and give adobe a run for their money… that’s what we call competition.

If they did that, i’d expect ADBE’s shares to take a hit. They scooped up Macromedia and did away with their most viable competition… but MSFT is now stepping in to do a little flash magic, if MSFT would scoop up QX & Swish, you’d have a pretty serious Adobe Threat.

Good one you are so enlighted . Thank you - Beer and Wine and Apples and Oranges what is the point your are trying to make with your choice of mediphors?

Anyways, I don’t think blaming the layout program (whether it’s Quark or ID) is fair here. If the printer is some low budget operation using out of date equipment, it’s not the program’s fault. I’ve had my share of experience with these kinds of places. They usually demand fonts to be outlined (even in PDF). Beside the outdated equipment, they have inexperienced workers. There’s a reason why they are cheaper. Make a point to meet the staff in person and talk to them. Experienced Pressman are paid quite well. The staff and the equipment is probably where most of the price difference comes from. Use what works and find workarounds. As long as unrealistic budgets lives on, there’s a niche for everyone.

You have good points, however….

You have probably been fortunate enough to work with a print company that has the latest and gratest RIP. Unfortunately, not all and certainly not the most affordable have this. I have personally had terrible times trying to send my complicated designs to rip and having them work. The downside to InDesign is that it does allow you to do alot of cool effects but those effects won’t always work especially if you are working with a spot color. Quark has the same problems. Sometimes, when putting in a dropshadow (whether using the extension or using the autmatic drop shadow) over a background the dropshadow does not go through as a transparence.

So, Steve has a very helpful tip out there for people. A good way to see if it will work is to export it as a pdf. If you see strange ghosting or fattening of text near a transparency, then the chances are that your local mom and pop printer will have a hard time RIPing it.

Don’t mean to stick my nose into it but I deal with these files all the time and whether it is because our RIP is ready to rest in peace or because of my lack of knowledge… it is a real issue.

For those who have never used InDesign the thought of switching is unthinkable. I hear it all the time ( I work in the printing industry) about how quark is better for printing. But really, quark has so many issues with transparencies and EPS’s and dropshadows that if I have to print a very complicated piece I know that I am going to have a headache getting it to work.

Yes, InDesign has print issues. But when you compare the two products they are both found lacking in perfection in that department. The true benefit in InDesign is it’s ease of use.

It is just an all around classier, smoother program. It is like comparing Champaign to beer. Or, eh hem… Mac to PC.

I also find that those who shout the loudest about the superiority of Quark have never really gotten very familiar with InDesign.

I was a dyed in the wool QX user for more than a decade. If anyone was enthusiastic about the program (but not about Quark service) it was me.

But you can’t deny the truth.
And the truth is Indesign is a far superior program (IMHO) and is part of a superior suite of programs (i.e. CS).

I started using Indesign in a new job in 2005 and I don’t see any reason to go back to Quark.

I don’t think I’ll be getting back on that old horse.
Pavlo

why would you need to load an Xtension when Drop Shadows are built into Quark 7?

why would you want Quark to go away, when Quark has better transparencies than InDesign and InDesign CS3 therefore will follow Quark and implement these too (competition is helpful)?

why would you personally benefit from Quark being dead?

Choppy

Yes, I am yet another user of InDesign who doesn’t know what the heck you’re talking about. I migrated from QX quite some time ago and do TONS of print work, text work, mags, catalogs, etc… w/ my beloved Adobe product… The print dialog box is simple as well. (All versions V2.0.2 – CS2)… i’m of the opinion that i don’t want to have to load an extension to simply get a dropped shadow… i like to look at it like this: i design using my tools correctly: logos in AI, photos in PS, and page layout in ID… additionally, i rarely send Packaged/Collected disks any more… i’ve gotten stellar quality for magazines & postcards alike with PDF’s…

yes, there are a few printers who cannot use ID or PDF’s. I’ve developed a solution for that as well: I DON’T USE THEM!

lastly, we also have a simple solution for the client who wishes us to use quark… that’s fine, but we’ll be charging them double hours and the purchase of the software.

case closed, we don’t use quark… and none of our close competitors do either.

QUARK… please die!

It took me a year to make the transition! I would do the odd project in InDesign — worked my way through Classroom In a Book (not that great, IMHO). Finally, with a major project facing me, I gritted my teeth, bumbled my way through it in InDesign, and NEVER looked back!

I know that ID is still a work in progress, but it is a magnificent program that makes page layout fun! (Well, relatively painless, anyway!)

A word of (obvious) advice for those who give the trial version a try: Let InDesign be InDesign. Don’t get upset because it doesn’t do something the way QX does. Make the (rather considerable) effort to understand how ID works, and I think you’ll begin to agree that this is a fabulous program. One of the approaches that I like (and that occasionally drives me crazy) is that there are usually three or four different ways to do things. You just have to pick the one you like the best and stick with it — or you’ll go crazy getting lost in all the options.

I’ve never had a problem running either an InDesign document or an InDesign-created PDF through RIP with what you mention and more. I’ve migrated magazines and newspapers to InDesign who use such features in their daily or monthly runs without problem.

By the way, XPress also does overlays and transparencies, and, through xtensions, graduated drop shadows and more.