What's Quark?

It's been too long, Quark needs to roll over and die. The only reason I will get it is too get rid of OS 9. They are so far behind it's pointless, except they still have the market share.

So they give you layers and multiple undos(30), how long have we been asking for that. InDesign has given me what I want, when I wanted it, 2 years ago.

Jeez...I haven't even switched to OS X yet... Can I still use Quark 3?

Like, oh my God! They actually delivered ahead of schedule! I think I read it was supposed to ship in fall. No matter how much people praise InDesign Quark still rules the planet. Of design at least.

No more procrastinating on switching to OS X. Oh... maybe just a little longer.

Yeah... I'm over to InDesign almost all the time now. I still raise a lot of eyebrows when I have to go to a different printer/prepress place with my InDesign files, though. I think Quark is going to hang on for quite awhile.

To me, it's really apples and apples, so why bother shelling out the $900?

I got three letters for printers who won't accept InDesign files. PDF

PDF

Exactly.

*Eidtor's note: would it be possible to stay away from an indesign vs quark discussion? I know I started it, but still...

Probably there is nothing to say about Quark without comparing it to indesign, but still...

Maybe I should have said "Noted without comment" instead.

Nice to have straight-to-PDF output. Quark was my last excuse for sticking with OS9... Now I'll have to give in and just admit that I use OS9 'cause OSX sucks.

I'm still a Quark die-hard. Yes, I'm pissed it took so long.

But most people that switched to InDesign don't work at the minutae level that annual report designers and editorial designers do. The program simply set the paradigm for the business. Anyone who doesn't understand the value of Quark just simply doesn't depend on it at that level. Not a slam on anyone, just an observation.

Quark never frustrated me enough to change. Another month though, and I would've probably thought differently.

Besides, I absolutely hate how Adobe constantly changes dialog features just when you get used to them.

And PDF is not an acceptable answer for press compatability with InDesign. The whole point of using a layout program is to be able to control color, type layers, fit, positioning for prepress. The prepress process and assembly itself is not as simple as spitting out a pdf. The fact that printers have not universally accepted InDesign points to an undeniable problem with the software's acceptance.

And I don't need another problem layered on top of releasing a file to press.

Okay. I'm leaving.

sorry, didn't see the editor's request till I posted.

Fine, besides the debate is pointless. People choose with their credit cards.

It's a sad state of affairs for both camps if you ask me. No true innovations are being offered in any layout software. They seem to be shining the same turd, and giving us answers to questions no one asked.

Compatability is a big question though.

XPress. The product is called QuarkXPress. Get it right. All of you.

As for the announcement, yea, I'm with most people...you still use QuarkXPress?

But, of course, lots of lazy graphic designers and print shops are still using, so this is great news for Apple. Finally get some legacy folks on board with OSX. (And with thew rumoured new machines coming this summer, that should signal some new sales surges.)

I use OS9 'cause OSX sucks.

I realized the other day that I haven't had to power down or reboot my laptop in about 4 months.

OSX is great.

The product is called QuarkXPress. Get it right. All of you.

Yeah, shame on you!

Oops. Shame on me too! No wasabi peas for you today, by jickity!

The prepress process and assembly itself is not as simple as spitting out a pdf.

PDF is ideal for prepress workflow. Yes, you need to set up your drivers, job options, etc. all properly, but once you are set, PDF is the way to go.

The fact that printers have not universally accepted InDesign points to an undeniable problem with the software's acceptance.

The reason that printers and graphic designers haven't universally accepted InDesign is because most of them are cheap and too lazy to learn new software. Plus, QuarkXPress, even with all of its quirks and lack of robust functionality, is adequate for most people.

I've dealt with WAY too many printers that can't handle concepts like 'FTP' or 'Freehand' or 'PC files' or 'PDF' or 'software updates' etc.

>And with thew rumoured new machines coming this summer, that should signal some new sales surges.

There is also a new version of OS X in the works. Codenamed - check the originality - Panther. Grrrrrr.

And PDF is not an acceptable answer for press compatability with InDesign. The whole point of using a layout program is to be able to control color, type layers, fit, positioning for prepress. The prepress process and assembly itself is not as simple as spitting out a pdf. The fact that printers have not universally accepted InDesign points to an undeniable problem with the software's acceptance. And I don't need another problem layered on top of releasing a file to press.

I agree, the whole point of using a layout program is to be able to control the things you mentioned, which both applications do a fine job of. However, if the designer has set up the document correctly, then the prepress process and assembly is as simple as "spitting out a PDF."

Being in the screenprinting industy (I distribute prepress, press, and postpress equipment from Europe) over the last few years we found our customers wishing for clients to send them PDF's and not native files. What a waste of time with font issues, misplaced images, spot colors, etc. We answered last year and developed a PDF based workflow and color proofing solution for creative firms and printers. Editable PDF's, trapping, imposition, automation, ICC profiling, etc. Efficient and quality PDF's for any output device. PDF's are not another problem, they are the solution and the future.

Anyone that doesn't know how to generate press quality PDF's must be on another level.

Sorry Armin, Tan started it... ;)

Preach on Kiran Max Weber

I'm very interested. Five or so years invested in Quark doesn't go away with one plus years of a heavy, cumbersome and in some cases inadequate replacement. Even if it is provided by Adobe.

But I'd like a full box please for my 900 bucks. Apple's page shows a mere DVD case - I think I'd like a stocky product box for the price and wait.

I think AIGA should take a leadership role here and pronounce which software packages work best for the different disciplines within graphic design. ;-)

Bravo, jon!

I just erased my serious and informative comment when I read yours.

I've been using OSX (10.2) for about a month now and I love it...BUT, it's making my G4-533 breathe kinda heavy for simple tasks. I know it's not the latest and greatest machine and all but as efficient as OSX is supposed to be I wish it'd run a little smoother.

One thing I'd like to bring up though:

When is UMAX gonna get their head out of their rears and give us OSX compatible software. That's my biggest complaint. Quark can wait, I use InDesign anyway...but having to restart into OS9 to scan anything is ridiculous.

Apparently you can have that box and manuel in exchange for only 145 more of your dollars...

heavy, cumbersome and in some cases inadequate replacement?

I thought that was Pagemaker...InDesign is anything but inadequate.

heavy, cumbersome and in some cases inadequate replacement?

I thought that was Pagemaker...InDesign is anything but inadequate.

Brent, if you have a UMAX USB 3400 (some versions) or 5400 you may try and give this a whirl.

> PDF's are not another problem, they are the solution and the future.

I agree. But my point is that InDesign is counting on this band-aid solution, rather than solving the existing compatability problem. And there is a problem.

And I have no desire to become a pdf expert. You can own that level all to yourself. I just want to be able to master the layout program itself. I expect the rest to be handled competently by the software and the prepress professionals. Whether or not they're lazy and unwilling to adapt to "the pdf future" is not my problem to solve or sympathize with. It's Adobe's.

I'm like Damien -- 9+ years of good experiences with Quark is more than enough proof to give them my $900 of faith. Universal acceptance and compatibility is just icing on the cake.

Kiran-Thanks! You're a peach. It seems to work. (for now...) Ah...just another temporary fix to deal with while waiting. I just love the headaches I give myself with this technocrapola.

> I expect the rest to be handled competently by the software and the prepress professionals. Whether or not they're lazy and unwilling to adapt to "the pdf future" is not my problem to solve or sympathize with. It's Adobe's.

It is your problem if is costing you or your client thousands of more dollars because prepress professionals are unwilling to advance to a work flow that saves time and money.

The quality print houses are with it.

I switched my biggest client that I create about 5 catalogs a year for(120-148 pages per issue - 200K - 450K quantity) to a total digital PDF workflow, cutting out prepress all together. Saves them over $100,000 a year and the quality has increased.

Could not have accomplished with Quark!

InDesign is counting on this band-aid solution, rather than solving the existing compatability problem.

I assume by "compatibility" you mean InDesign's adoption rate among printers?

Like, Darrel said:

The reason that printers and graphic designers haven't universally accepted InDesign is because most of them are cheap and too lazy to learn new software. Plus, QuarkXPress, even with all of its quirks and lack of robust functionality, is adequate for most people.

It's a marketing issue too and that is Adobe's problem.

And I have no desire to become a pdf expert.

You don't have too and it doesn't require a 9 year learning curve like Quark. It's about the efficiency of PDF's, not what layout package one uses.

Whether or not they're lazy and unwilling to adapt to "the pdf future" is not my problem to solve or sympathize with. Universal acceptance and compatibility is just icing on the cake.

I wish more people had as much luck with production as you.

Kiran and Tom have excellent points, explaining the hard facts that a PDF workflow will and can save a client money. That's great to know - but it still is far from being both simple enough and easily employable to be an adequate solution. And this is not my fault or Tan's - this is really Adobe's gig - where they will need to continue to develop an application and system for both the creators and publishers to easily learn and adopt. It may have been simple for you - you may even had the time, but perhaps after assimilating the quirks or quark for so long, we're not eager to get into yet another technological mud-pit that has yet to be simplified to the degree that everyone can use it.

Quark has one up on Adobe - it was such a nutbuster to adopt that by the time a lot of us figured a smooth and reliable way to work with our clients that we loathed to ditch all that because our hardware manufacturer switched OSs on us. InDesign fails some of us Quark die-hards where the learning curve was not only present but it involved a whole new version of output.

I can't wait till I am old enough where I can simply give up keeping up with it all. When I retire I long for a life without a desktop or software. Unless its keeping me alive... Hmmm.

So now we're talking about the feasability and practicality of PDF's.

What you're saying is that now all designers need to qualify prepress department compatibility software usage. And demand that the world universally adopt PDF workflow or else. And why stop there? Why not find out how printers automate fulfillment, or what shipping method they use to send it out. Or what kind of software the post office is using to mail things.

You get the idea.

I'm NOT arguing the efficiency or use of PDFs here. I'm just saying that it's getting a little beyond the realm of responsibility for designers -- and it's a problem for Adobe to solve with its product marketing and development, not me.

So stop trying to convince me to tattoo Acrobat Distiller on my forehead. Fine, PDF is the greatest thing since indoor plumbing. I concede.

> I wish more people had as much luck with production as you.

Apparently, lots of people do -- that's why Quark has been able to retain a foothold on the market despite the OSX problems. We wouldn't be having this discussion if Quark had the same compatibility problem that InDesign does.

Like I said, people who don't find value in Quark never will, because it means that they don't use it in the same capacity as people who swear by it. It's pointless for one group to convince the other that they're right.

Am I missing something? Can't Quark generate -- through Distiller -- PDFs that are just as good as InDesign's? Or is it just the intermediary step that y'all object to? As someone who has finally mastered the Quark/Distiller relationship, is there a compelling reason for me to abandon it once I make the leap to OSX?

Ugh. Dave -- it's not about PDF and Quark. Both work fine in OSX.

The whole thing was about press/printers not taking InDesign files. Someone said PDFs were a solution. I disagreed. Then someone threw a chair, and the whole bar brawl started.

Armin, you did warn us....

What you're saying is that now all designers need to qualify prepress department compatibility software usage. And demand that the world universally adopt PDF workflow or else. And why stop there? Why not find out how printers automate fulfillment, or what shipping method they use to send it out. Or what kind of software the post office is using to mail things.

Not at all Tan. Since the discussion apparently lead to the feasibility and practicality of PDF's, I was merely trying to point out the great benefits and simplicity of this technology in my experience. No one should learn or adopt something they don't want to. Perhaps designers should also never have learned how to set type either. It is cooler than indoor plumbing, I do get the idea. We both do. I think we also agree on the fact that to each his own on Quark or InDesign. We're beating a dead horse with that issue. Why should I care what you use to design? As long as the work kicks ass, which it does, then all is OK.

I'm just saying that it's getting a little beyond the realm of responsibility for designers.

It really isn't, but I digress. Again, the type example.

So stop trying to convince me to tattoo Acrobat Distiller on my forehead.

That would be cool. Maybe I should do that.

Can't Quark generate -- through Distiller -- PDFs that are just as good as InDesign's?

No longer through Distiller but through the Global Graphics Jaws PDF Libraries .

I am curious to see the reviews and tests.

Then someone threw a chair, and the whole bar brawl started.

Truce. Tan, I hope none of what is said on Speak Up, or in this thread, is taken personally. It's all discussion. It's an amazing place.

Either learn how your tools work, or get yourself a production artist.

QuarkXPress takes all of a few months to master. It's a pretty basic program. PDFs aren't rocket science, either. It's part of your toolset.

In college I worked as one of the color/large format output operators. There were two types of design students: those that could only 'design' in QuarkXPress, and those that took the time to learn how their computer worked and the various aspects of software. Invariably, the former would always forget to include fonts, not set image resolutions correctly, fail to adapt to XPress's quirks, etc.

Then, when working for a large 50 person firm, I found the same two camps. That doesn't make one person a better conceptual designer than the other, but the "I only understand XPress" were a bit of a roadblock in terms of overall production productivity. But, like I said, that's what the production artists are for I suppose...

I'll never utter those three letters again, at least here.

>Am I missing something? Can't Quark generate -- through Distiller -- PDFs that are just as good as InDesign's?

I'm with you Dave, I have never understood this InDesign PDF prodigy thing. When I need to do a PDF from Quark I just do "Convert to PDF," go take a wiss and when I come back it's ready and perfect.

I hear people talk about how long it took them to master quark. They use that reasoning to justify why they aren't moving to indesign. They don't want to "do that again." Thing is, they won't. Indesign is intuitivley designed, and quark simply isn't. They won't have to spend 9 years learning it.

People are always saying that Quark is better. Aside from personal preference (of which mine is for intuitively designed programs) what can Quark really do that Indesign can't? I've been told it's more precise, but I've never seen it.

> Truce. Tan, I hope none of what is said on Speak Up, or in this thread, is taken personally.

Don't worry Kiran. It's all proverbial -- and of course, taken within the context of a good discussion. All good discussions are heated as well as informative.

I throw chairs at Felix, Armin, Damien all the time, and get them thrown right back.

btw, everyone is taking my 9 years of Quark in the wrong context. It didn't take me 9 years to master -- only a few months. I just wanted to point out the fact that Quark has remained at the top of the industry longer than most everything in the industry.

Much of the interface, quickkeys, dialog protocol, and process of Quark has driven and influenced design software throughout the industry. Much of InDesign's team at Adobe are ex-Quark programmers and designers for that very reason. One of my best friend works on the InDesign team at Adobe so I'm quite familiar with their work.

Intuitive programming is a tricky thing. Making a program too intuitive turns it into idiot-proofing like Microsoft Word or Pagemaker.

I'll say this -- let's face it, InDesign is trying to be a new and improved Quark. There are things that are new and improved in InDesign. Adobe has used its knowledge in type integration wisely. They've adapted all of Quark's feature and has steadily made small changes to claim it as their own. But it's just not better than Quark yet -- different, but not better.

If you have to ask about Quark's precision, then you don't use or depend on it at that level. And that's fine. There's just no sense in explaining though.

Adobe's not trying to invent a new paradigm in layout software, cause no one will buy it. I think they're close -- but not enough to convince a Quark diehard like me to try it just because it's new. Others who aren't as married to Quark will switch, and that's fine -- but I don't think ultimately, that's who Adobe cares about. The meat of the market is guys like me.

When InDesign becomes a better clone of Quark -- I'll be the first in line to purchase.

Speaking as a pre-press professional, Quark has simply been around forever because it was early, it was excellent, and the only other app back then was PageMaker (horrible!). Quark was trickier to learn, but very precise to use... especially for advertising typography (back when that mattered a lot).

I've been working with InDesign, though, and love it! But hardly anyone is using it yet. As an ex-toiler in the fields of typography, I especially like the automatic hanging punctuation. Could it be high-end typographic considerations may at last make a comeback?

Nothing is going to make it effortless, but Adobe has done an excellent job of building on the strengths of Illustrator as well as matching and enhancing the features of Quark, while at last letting go of the Space Invaders clunkiness of PageMaker.

I just wanted to point out the fact that Quark has remained at the top of the industry longer than most everything in the industry.

By saying that, are you trying to infer it's the better product? Realize that 'better' and 'market share' have little to do with each other.

That said, you say it is 'better'. How?

I especially like the automatic hanging punctuation.

Not a Freehand user, eh? A few years ago, I switched completely to Freehand for most smaller page layout jobs. The hanging puncuation was one of the reasons. Unfortunately, it was missing some of the niceties of XPress, and FH has stagnated since version 9 so I think it's end-of-life is near.

> Realize that 'better' and 'market share' have little to do with each other.

I disagree. Products that are 'better' to consumers also tend to compete well for market share. Those two things are very much related to each other.

Sure, there are arguable exceptions like Microsoft, but not in this case.

>That said, you say it is 'better'. How?

Let me get Quark 6 and use it for a week or two. I have a copy of InDesign that came free with my new G4 also. I'll evaluate both and will give you some objective points as to what I deem as 'better'.

Fair?

From Macintouch:

Unlike previous versions, you'll have to activate this one thru Quark, which will issue a code that will lock the software to [a singe] hard drive

Hmm...well, not that I use XPress much anymore, but that there's reason enough alone to switch to InDesign.

I disagree. Products that are 'better' to consumers also tend to compete well for market share. Those two things are very much related to each other.

Nope. People want adequate. Rarely does best product win. Microsoft. Betamax. American Cars. Kraft Singles. Miller Lite. ;o)

Fair?

Oh sure, I was just curious as to how you felt it was better. Having used XPress for some time, I found it does what it does great, but it really doesn't do a whole lot. It does paste up great, and has nice typographic controls. But other than that, it really never matured beyond that. (Though from what I understand, their integrated publishing systems are quite useful).

> Microsoft. Betamax. American Cars. Kraft Singles. Miller Lite.

American cars? I dunno -- I think Honda, Lexus, Mercedes, and VW are surviving just fine. And let's name some brands that are perceived as "better", and also market segment leaders: Sony, Xerox, Fedex, Haagen-Dazs, Fisher Price, Coca-cola, Maytag, Nokia, Kitchen-Aid, Weber Grills, Bose, Burton snowboards, North Face, Seiko, and I can probably name another 100 instances.

People want value. That means the most for a comparable price. And that's more than "adequate". I think your statement is 1/2 glass pessimistic.

As to Quark -- well yes, it's value is still very typopographic, layout, print/publishing centric. But what else would it "mature" to? It was never meant to be a drawing or imaging program. It does one thing very, very well -- and for me, that's all I need it to do. I don't need to turn my Quark layouts to web pages. And I don't use Quark to design architectural renderings of enviromental designs. So I guess I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here?

Armin wrote: Quark was due in the Fall

I believe that was Fall of 2001. That is, unless you go with the answer I got at MacWorld SF in 2002 which was essentially, "any quarter now."

I hope XPress lasts a couple more years at least, so Adobe has ample reason to pump money into developing InDy before they fully trounce it.

Come on in, the water's fine!

So I guess I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here?

You kept saying InD wasn't 'better' than XPress yet. I was curious as to the specifics of that. (What makes XPress better than InD?)

As for the maturing comment, I agree that it shouldn't mature into anything beyond a page layout program (though anyone remember their goofy attempt to get into web page design?)

One thing that has made XPress succesful is that it has an incredibly basic tool set, so most people, once they learn the quirks, are set to go.

As for maturing, I was referring to basic improvements that were so long in coming...multiple undoes, layers, better page navigator, imposition, table editing, glossary/index/TOC creation, etc. Granted, XPress had a great plug-in architecture, but because of that, Quark never really added much needed features and instead passed the burden onto the vendors and consumers.

True, true.

I said earlier in the thread that I didn't think either products brought any significant innovations to the table.

My theory is that InDesign will continue to mirror Quark closer and closer till people like me find it credible enough to switch. Then once we do, and Quark dies, Adobe will find some way to fuck it all up. I don't trust Adobe in the least bit -- to me, they're a midget Microsoft. The company is fucking devious.

I used to be a FreeHand poweruser. Then Illustrator 5 lured me in. Adobe eventually ruined the program with Illustrator 8 -- and by then, I'd already committed.

(83, 84)

to me, they're a midget Microsoft. The company is fucking devious.

And Quark isn't? ;o)

And as for FH/AI...I completely agree. They both went down hill right around version 8...

The company is fucking devious.

Oh now I have to start chucking furniture. Tan - I've met and talked to some people that used to work at Adobe. They didn't seem bad. One in particular enjoyed his job, liked inventing new products, and was continuously looking at how to improve the company.

Granted they're a huge company, but considerably smaller than Microsoft, and so I think their only crime is because of that, they sometimes hire stupid people who fuck things up.

Quark is no better - in fact is a small company who was also devious when they tried to suggest a takeover bid some years back. Which in turn told Adobe to pull its socks up.

And in the end its all business for them - though competitive behaviour isn't always bad behvaiour.

Tan, have you used any version of InDesign yet? Just curious.

> Tan, have you used any version of InDesign yet? Just curious.

I opened the box, and my hand was burned like holy water burns a vampire.

Seriously, I tried out 1.5 but not 2.0 yet. I promise to reserve more judgement till I do. I'll be the first to admit I'm wrong.

> Oh now I have to start chucking furniture. Tan - I've met and talked to some people that used to work at Adobe. They didn't seem bad.

I'm NOT saying Quark is a saintly company by any means. Adobe SF is not necessarily the same as Adobe Seattle. The friends I know around here are less than pleased with Adobe's culture. It seems to be more propaganda based, and as they're getting bigger -- more political.

Sure, their practices aren't nearly as predatory as Microsoft. But you should ask Aldus, or Macromedia if Adobe was warm and friendly.

I know at the end it's all business. Let's hope that doesn't ruin Adobe.

An interesting read:

"QuarkXPress 6, long awaited but surprisingly not overdue, ships this week, according to Quark. With the world's leading page-layout application now available on OS X, things get interesting for Quark, for the industry, and for creative pros everywhere."

Creative Analysis: The Impact of QuarkXPress 6

Interesting read Kiran. Thanks.

> QuarkXPress still owns at least 90 percent of the desktop publishing market in terms of single unit sales.

Whether or not InDesign is a slightly better mousetrap is irrelevant to much extent. Quark's 90% market share is a difficult mountain to climb.

Things will get interesting no doubt.

> QuarkXPress still owns at least 90 percent of the desktop publishing market in terms of single unit sales.

I don't even think single-unit sales are Quark's bread-and-butter--it's organizational sales--magazines that run on CopyDesk, entire publishing companies devoted to QXpress. Simon & Schuster, my alma mater, reconfigured not only their design department to adapt to QXpress, but their copy editing/proofreading department also works in QXP. (In fact, they use it as a verb -- to "quark" means to input text corrections.) They also created an in-house typesetting division and set up a standardized workflow system based on XpressTags (I've heard it's migrating to XML now) that carries a manuscript from copy editor to designer to typesetter to proofreader. It's a huge investment. HarperCollins, and I'm sure others, have similar systems.

Quark's not entrenched, it's embedded, baby.

Thanks for the link, Kiran.

First big review of Quark 6.

You can only run it on one machine - MS tactics!

Here it is. Yup.

I just can't get excited about this (or InDesign, or OSX). It used to be that any new version of a software program offered features that made your life much easier. Now Adobe thinks that tools that light up when you roll over them are worth the price of an upgrade. These programs already do what I need them to, so why bother even buying the new versions?

When I'm forced to upgrade my computer (which hopefully won't be for a long time) I'll buy whatever software I need to get my work done. I'll have to re-learn how to do the same things I already know how to do, and my design work won't improve at all as a result. I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is something to get excited about.

OK, I admit there are a few nice things like being able to adjust the word spacing in InDesign, but Freehand has had that for a long time now.

Also, in case you're thinking I'm a cranky technophobe, I have to say that Freehand is better than InDesign AND Quark for most things that designers do. I wish I could use it exclusively.

FYI -- There's been a free Quark xtension for interword kerning since 3.0 in 95. It's called Thingamagig if I remember. So no big innovation for InDesign.

Freehand?! ..tsk...tsk...David, you must not work on many multipage catalogs and books. It would be sheer madness if I had to design annual reports in Freehand. You know not what you've just claimed.

I knew it wouldn't take long for someone to start beating me over the head for championing Freehand!

Well Tan, I would have said the same thing until I was forced to learn and use the program at a studio where the owner recognized the forward thinking of Macromedia. As a matter of fact, I've done several 24 page catalogs in Freehand (you do know that it's a multipage program, right?) These were for the car audio industry and were very "techno" and design-heavy...with lots of over-the-top vector graphics and photoshop backgrounds. Being able to completely integrate all vector images with text without bouncing back and forth between programs made the projects not only easier to execute, but it let me push the design much further than I ever could have with Quark. We also did quite a bit of package design for the same clients, and it was perfect for that—superior to Illustrator in every way.

However, I'll admit that you couldn't use it for magazine or book design.

Hey that wasn't a beating...it was just mild, polite chastising.

I do realize FH can handle multiple pages -- but to a limit. 24 is pushing it. Posters, small brochures, packaging, logo work. Sure, FH is fine.

But as a document layout program, FH is for the small stuff. Quark and InDes are more legit publishing tools.

product activation system?

Holy. Crap.

Reminds me of hardware keys. (anyone remember those?) If they know what's good for them it won't last.

Via creativepro.com

That said, I will make one (more or less) definitive statement: Comparing the two programs in a vacuum, all things being equal, it is quite clear that Adobe InDesign is the superior program. It incorporates superior technology, is written using a superior programming methodology, the features it has in common with XPress are implemented in a superior way, and while XPress has a few important features that InDesign does not, InDesign clearly has the superior feature set in toto.

Subjective but none the less. Yes!

And did you see their story yesterday?

Grasping for something that Quark can be better than, Gene Gable does a compare/contrast of Quark vs. Hand Composition.

Forget software, this is a quark I can happily support. (And yes, it's a soft cheese.)

(Note: NY Times registration requ., but free)

And you can actually call it just Quark without Darrel correcting you. Big plus.