- Sep 8, 2008When InDesign was first leaked it was known as K2 (meaning 2000): the
Quark Killer. It did just that. Quark was intuitive?, you have got to
be kidding. Worse thing about Quark, other than the fact that it was
extremely unstable, the company arrogantly treated its customers like
second-class citizens. How long did it take for Quark to recognize the
OpenType type format? I can't imagine how they have survived, or
--- In PPLetterpress@yahoogroups.com, "bryan@..." <bryan@...> wrote:
> Quark: Awesome for book layout, the industry standard for small and
> large-scale publishing, dynamic and loaded with functionality if you
> take the time to use it. I consulted and trained in pre-press and
> desktop for most of the 90's. It does exactly what it's supposed to.
> The only drawback to Quark is the very long delay that happened
> between Version 5 and 6. for prepress, Quark's simple ability to set
> traps was a reason enough to use it. Markzware wrote so many add-ons
> for Quark it was almost impossible to be held back when using Quark.
> Pagemaker: I used to call it Ragemaker. the app sucked. Slightly non-
> intuitive but a good amount of people learned DTP using Ragemaker
> simply because Quark was too expensive for most colleges to purchase.
> Quark is light-years ahead of Ragemaker with respect to
> functionality. The text box in Ragemaker is slightly better than
> Microsoft Word, Text warp in Ragemaker was better than the early
> versions of Quark, but once Quark hit version 5, that all changed.
> There is a reason Ragemaker was shelved once Aldus was purchased by
> Adobe. I find that most people who stuck with Ragemaker were doing it
> for some kind of "I'm not selling out to Quark" stance. Basically
> people used Ragemaker because it was cheap and easy to pirate.
> Everyone had a pirated copy of Ragemaker.
> Speaking as someone who worked in one of Boston's largest service
> bureaus and trained DTP professionals for careers, Ragemaker sucks.
> It was a dead-end application that followed a non-intuitive series of
> blunders that ended it's development. Simply put, it was developed
> when people were learning about DTP. Quark had a better approach and
> it showed. To redevelop Ragemaker was too expensive and everyone
> generally accepted that a redevelopment would make it too much like
> Quark, which would bring many lawsuits from Quark. They loved to sue
> anyone who infringed on their model. I worked in the magazine
> publication industry for many years. The Ragemaker crap that used to
> come through our door was a nightmare for production, filled with
> holes that required so many workarounds it was ridiculous.
> Indesign: Originally promoted as an upgrade to Ragemaker for
> Ragemaker fans. It launched in the void between Quark 5 and 6. then
> when Q6 came out with it's hefty price tage, the selling point for
> "Indy" was that it was bundled in CS packages. By the time Q6
> launched enough people had switched to "Indy" which ran on Apple OS
> X. Quark 5 still ran on OS 9. When Q6 launched to run on OS X, they
> had already lost enough of their market share to Adobe and "Indy". As
> page layout goes, it's a very powerful tool, but still not as
> intuitive as Quark 6, especially for the large-scale publishing
> Illustrator: for single page layout and prepress, this is the
> application I use exclusively. Powerful on so many levels it's
> unbelievable. When they finally upgraded their trace functionality to
> one-up Freehand, they set the bar so high no one will ever meet it.
> If they could just come out with a stripped down version for print.
> As a side note, I also did a lot of the beta testing on the first
> releases of Aldus Trapwise and Presswise. Even Aldus acknowledged the
> superiority of Quark. It was the preferred application when testing
> Trap & Presswise.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>