Comments on: QuarkXPress 7: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ The Authority for News & Opinion on the War of the Desktop Publishing Giants QuarkXPress and Adobe InDesign Fri, 29 Aug 2008 04:31:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: peterbeninate.org » QuarkXPress 7 Review http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2121 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:45:26 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2121 [...] Here is a VERY in depth review of QuarkXPress 7. There are no screenshots, but if you like to read, this should keep you busy for a while. [...] […] Here is a VERY in depth review of QuarkXPress 7. There are no screenshots, but if you like to read, this should keep you busy for a while. […]

]]> by: john doe http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2073 Tue, 04 Apr 2006 04:53:05 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2073 oh man, after reading that whole post by michael walberg with my mouth hanging open in disbelief and then he finally loses all weight to his argument by saying "All quark needs is layers and it would be just about perfect. I use quark to bring all my ideas together. " oh man...... oh man, after reading that whole post by michael walberg with my mouth hanging open in disbelief and then he finally loses all weight to his argument by saying

“All quark needs is layers and it would be just about perfect. I use quark to bring all my ideas together. ”

oh man……

]]> by: Pariah S. Burke http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2072 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 18:22:09 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2072 Hi, Michael. QuarkXPress <em>has</em> layers. Hi, Michael.

QuarkXPress has layers.

]]> by: michael Walberg http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2071 Mon, 03 Apr 2006 17:43:30 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-2071 An interesting article though it is obvious that you have succombed to Adobe's marketing machine and are biased toward indesign. I am a fan of adobe-always will be but Indesign is not completely new it is basicly a repositioned pagemaker. Pagemaker failed bcause it just became too cumbersome. Quark's strength is that it stick with the basics. It is a designb and compositing tool for print (and a whole lot more). It doesn't depend on gimmicks to sell. It's one weakness was with tech support not an old user interface. Many designers forget what their profession is-Signmaking-framing content. While the design may become art, that is not its purpose. Quark has a straightforward layout that is practical and clean. I am interested in looking at the layout I am creating not some crazy new interface. Change for the sake of change is a marketing ploy. Quark users are the majority for a reason. The program works and everyone in the world uses it. I still find indesign to be a bit clunky-especially how it deals with picture boxes. It's intersting to see how the palettes start to mimich Quarks interface. Don't get me wrong indesign is a great program but it is just a little heavy trying to do everything. All quark needs is layers and it would be just about perfect. I use quark to bring all my ideas together. I find it easier tothink in a clean room. InDesign is just to cluttered with to many features. Somewhere in all the gimicks the idea of the designer just gets lost. An interesting article though it is obvious that you have succombed to Adobe’s marketing machine and are biased toward indesign. I am a fan of adobe-always will be but Indesign is not completely new it is basicly a repositioned pagemaker. Pagemaker failed bcause it just became too cumbersome. Quark’s strength is that it stick with the basics. It is a designb and compositing tool for print (and a whole lot more). It doesn’t depend on gimmicks to sell. It’s one weakness was with tech support not an old user interface. Many designers forget what their profession is-Signmaking-framing content. While the design may become art, that is not its purpose. Quark has a straightforward layout that is practical and clean. I am interested in looking at the layout I am creating not some crazy new interface. Change for the sake of change is a marketing ploy. Quark users are the majority for a reason. The program works and everyone in the world uses it. I still find indesign to be a bit clunky-especially how it deals with picture boxes. It’s intersting to see how the palettes start to mimich Quarks interface. Don’t get me wrong indesign is a great program but it is just a little heavy trying to do everything. All quark needs is layers and it would be just about perfect. I use quark to bring all my ideas together. I find it easier tothink in a clean room. InDesign is just to cluttered with to many features. Somewhere in all the gimicks the idea of the designer just gets lost.

]]> by: marco http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1534 Wed, 22 Feb 2006 09:58:50 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1534 Wow! I din not know Quark marketing managers also visited yor site, Burke! This guy obviously never really used the fantastic JAWS technology to produce bloated pdf files! Wow! I din not know Quark marketing managers also visited yor site, Burke! This guy obviously never really used the fantastic JAWS technology to produce bloated pdf files!

]]> by: spikey http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1529 Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:51:25 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1529 I haven't reads the rest of the article but if the complete rubbish you wrote about pdf production is anything to go by I don't think I'll bother. XPress 6 and 6.5 produce perfect print ready and web pdfs that are only marginally bigger than those produced by Acrobat, the only time it fails to produce one is when the resulting filename is too long. The only problem is the way the preferences work which doesn't appear well documented but tonly takes five minutes to work out. Once you use the manual compression options rather than the useless automatic ones life becomes simple. I haven’t reads the rest of the article but if the complete rubbish you wrote about pdf production is anything to go by I don’t think I’ll bother.
XPress 6 and 6.5 produce perfect print ready and web pdfs that are only marginally bigger than those produced by Acrobat, the only time it fails to produce one is when the resulting filename is too long. The only problem is the way the preferences work which doesn’t appear well documented but tonly takes five minutes to work out. Once you use the manual compression options rather than the useless automatic ones life becomes simple.

]]> by: marco http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1524 Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:45:18 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1524 Ehm, what about PDF import? Can Xpress 7 import complex (spotcolor), PDF's with more than one page? Will it understand and respect the trapping inside the pdf? (If you adressed this and I somehow missed it, my apologies. I have to read your story between differnt tasks, at work). Ehm, what about PDF import? Can Xpress 7 import complex (spotcolor), PDF’s with more than one page? Will it understand and respect the trapping inside the pdf? (If you adressed this and I somehow missed it, my apologies. I have to read your story between differnt tasks, at work).

]]> by: Edward http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1523 Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:21:20 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1523 PS: Please excuse the gramatical errors and typos in my previous comment -- the hangover seems to have kicked in... lol PS: Please excuse the gramatical errors and typos in my previous comment — the hangover seems to have kicked in… lol

]]> by: Edward http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1522 Mon, 20 Feb 2006 13:15:14 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1522 Frankly, i like this article. I will say that this is unbiased except for the opening statement under "Buying Advice" 'InDesign CS2 is still a superior product in many of the ways that count, but the list has grown significantly shorter...' - that would be a matter of opinon! So I shall respect yours but not agree with it. And its a little odd to add the application icon under "The Bad". That is topic that shouldn't have been covered here... But all in all -- well done! The screenshots, would be nice for those who haven't used 7 Beta. So do try adding them if you get the chance. These are the kind of articles I would like to read and not a Quark-bashing review on their reviewer guide. It would be even better if you could write articles on how Quark's and InDesign's handle features comparted to each other and which is more efficient from your point of view. THIS IS A GOOD ARTICLE Cheers Frankly, i like this article. I will say that this is unbiased except for the opening statement under “Buying Advice”
‘InDesign CS2 is still a superior product in many of the ways that count, but the list has grown significantly shorter…’ - that would be a matter of opinon! So I shall respect yours but not agree with it. And its a little odd to add the application icon under “The Bad”. That is topic that shouldn’t have been covered here…

But all in all — well done! The screenshots, would be nice for those who haven’t used 7 Beta. So do try adding them if you get the chance. These are the kind of articles I would like to read and not a Quark-bashing review on their reviewer guide. It would be even better if you could write articles on how Quark’s and InDesign’s handle features comparted to each other and which is more efficient from your point of view.
THIS IS A GOOD ARTICLE
Cheers

]]> by: Rene http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1518 Sat, 18 Feb 2006 16:32:13 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1518 I really enjoyed this well-balanced article. Well done and keep up the good work. I really enjoyed this well-balanced article. Well done and keep up the good work.

]]> by: Pariah S. Burke http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1517 Fri, 17 Feb 2006 23:31:58 +0000 http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2006/quarkxpress-7-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#comment-1517 Correction: This article was supposed to have more than 25 screenshots and figures. Unfortunately, a disk corruption ate them (and other things). Rather than wait until new screenshots and figures were built, we decided to run the article without them. Correction: This article was supposed to have more than 25 screenshots and figures. Unfortunately, a disk corruption ate them (and other things). Rather than wait until new screenshots and figures were built, we decided to run the article without them.

]]>