«

(Adrian) wrote in
news: om:

> The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
> department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
> any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.

Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite competition
from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the industry, despite QXP
having competition that is undeniably superior...and mucho cheaper. The Mac
v.s. PC competition isn't as clear cut.

Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being bitten
by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact the bug was
corrected by a revision *in 1992*.

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:15:58 GMT, Eric Gill <>
wrote:

> (Adrian) wrote in
>news:. com:
>
>> The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
>> department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
>> any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.
>
>Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite competition
>from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the industry, despite QXP
>having competition that is undeniably superior...and mucho cheaper. The Mac
>v.s. PC competition isn't as clear cut.
>
>Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being bitten
>by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact the bug was
>corrected by a revision *in 1992*.

LOL! I've always seen Quark as bug factory anyway. And that's
apart from their support desks who, frankly, need support

And I notice that all those companies mentioned were American. Inertia
obviously works for longer in the US than Europe

--

Hecate
(Fried computers a specialty)

Hecate <> wrote in
news::

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:15:58 GMT, Eric Gill <>
> wrote:
>
>> (Adrian) wrote in
>>news: .com:
>>
>>> The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
>>> department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
>>> any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.
>>
>>Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite
>>competition from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the
>>industry, despite QXP having competition that is undeniably
>>superior...and mucho cheaper. The Mac v.s. PC competition isn't as
>>clear cut.
>>
>>Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being
>>bitten by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact
>>the bug was corrected by a revision *in 1992*.
>
> LOL! I've always seen Quark as bug factory anyway.

<shrug> It was always better than it's competition (until Indy) as a
general layout program, especially in the bug department.

But, in all seriousness, who the hell doesn't update their software in
more than a *decade*? Especially when it's FREE?!?

> And that's
> apart from their support desks who, frankly, need support

Meds. They needs meds. Tranquilizers and thorazine, especially Fred
Ibrahimi, one of the most hostile, arrogant jerks in the industry.

> And I notice that all those companies mentioned were American. Inertia
> obviously works for longer in the US than Europe

Well, yes and no. 'Way back when the PC really wasn't suited to graphics
work, the Mac had competition from two other 68000 based machines, which
were lots more popular in Europe than in the U.S. By the time they were a
non-factor, the PC was a much better contender in the field.

"edjh" <> wrot
> It may be that the Windows version of
> Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say that...

I don't use a Mac, but I work where Quark is used on many Windows machines.
It does tend to send Windows to a blue screen of death now and then. Part of
the problem is that parts of Quark Win is still based on a Windows 3.11
technology. It relies on the win.ini file for managing soft fonts with
printers and this seems to be where it has the most problems. Quark 5 can
also be slow when using files stored on network drives. I was told that this
is because Quark does some copy protection checking over a network, but
don't know that for certain. I know that prior versions of Quark did use
network protocols to check to see if other installations of the same license
are running, but that was many years ago.

I understand Quark 6 has been rewritten to use the registry to manage fonts
and I am hoping that this may solve some of the problems. We also use
InDesign to some degree, but don't find many of the printers in our area
offering the same level of support for that program. I suppose that is all
part of the "inertia" mentioned in prior posts.

--
Fred Doyle
www.leafpublishing.com


"edjh" <> wrote in message
news:91eQa.13983$_. ..
> Hecate wrote:
> > On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 15:15:58 GMT, Eric Gill <>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >> (Adrian) wrote in
> >>news: .com:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The interesting thing about all these photo agency's retouching
> >>>department is that they ALL use Macs for their work. I'm not making
> >>>any judgemental statements on this, just stating facts.
> >>
> >>Quark Xpress has between 80%-90% of the market, too, despite competition
> >
> >>from InDesign. Stasis is the name of the game in the industry, despite
QXP
> >
> >>having competition that is undeniably superior...and mucho cheaper. The
Mac
> >>v.s. PC competition isn't as clear cut.
> >>
> >>Hell, an even better example is how many Quark users are still being
bitten
> >>by a bug in a popular free plugin (XTension), depite the fact the bug
was
> >>corrected by a revision *in 1992*.
> >
> >
> > LOL! I've always seen Quark as bug factory anyway. And that's
> > apart from their support desks who, frankly, need support
> >
> > And I notice that all those companies mentioned were American. Inertia
> > obviously works for longer in the US than Europe
> >
> > --
> >
> > Hecate
> > (Fried computers a specialty)
>
> I don't know if "inertia" is the right term. I don't see any compelling
> reason to switch from Mac to PC in publishing or graphics and I can see
> some drawbacks in doing so. I can work with either platform but I much
> prefer Mac. I know several designers who would be very depressed if
> forced to give up their Macs.
>
> As for Quark, I use Quark 4 every day and it doesn't appear to be
> particularly bug-prone to me. I can't think of one major bug that
> plagues us. It does have some aggravating "features" it's true, but
> nothing crippling. InDesign might be better; I think "undeniably
> superior" is overstating it a bit. It may be that the Windows version of
> Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say that...
> --
> Comic book sketches and artwork:
> http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
>
>

Eric Gill wrote:

>>I don't know if "inertia" is the right term.
>
>
> I believe it's right on. Until Quark killed their forums when they released
> QXP 6 (I presume they were tired of their users waxing eloquent on how
> wonderful InDesign is) there were *still* users complaining of the bug in
> PasteboardXT. The 1991 version. As I noted above.
>
> I've got plenty more examples. Prepress houses. Magazines. Major ad
> agencies uses QXP 3.3. Illustrator 7, 604e based Powermacs. Pagemaker.
>
>
>>I don't see any
>>compelling reason to switch from Mac to PC in publishing or graphics
>>and I can see some drawbacks in doing so. I can work with either
>>platform but I much prefer Mac. I know several designers who would be
>>very depressed if forced to give up their Macs.
>
>
> And I would be depressed to give up a fast, cheaply and easily upgradeable
> platform if there were actually some real drawbacks in using a PC.
>
> The G5 and Panther may change that. We'll see once they arrive.

I'm not asking anyone to give up Windows if that's what they use. I am
just saying that there don't seem to be any compelling reasons to didtch
Mac for Windows. We seem not to have any problems upgrading our Macs.

>
>
>>As for Quark, I use Quark 4 every day and it doesn't appear to be
>>particularly bug-prone to me. I can't think of one major bug that
>>plagues us.
>
>
> "Cannot find volume" on save.

Never get that.
>
>
>>It does have some aggravating "features" it's true, but
>>nothing crippling. InDesign might be better; I think "undeniably
>>superior" is overstating it a bit.
>
>
> I think you should try using it before you say that. Indy 2.x's features
> read - and work -like my wish list for what QXP 5 should have been.
> Conversely, I don't feel QXP 5 or 6 were serious attempts to address real
> users' needs aside from making 6 OSX compatible - 2 years after the
> competition.
>
> Take a look here:
>
> http://users2.ev1.net/~nightskycreat...screenshot.jpg
>
> This is a fluff piece, really, but it shows off some of Indy's
> capabilities. For example, "The Goddess" has two types of shadows and a
> gradient applied but is still live, editable type and moreover can be moved
> anywhere on the page without having to worry about the shadows.
>
> The Accord headline is an Acrobat file from photoshop, with vector
> information intact.
>
> The statuette is a PSD file with transparency instead of a clipping path.
>
> The page full of palettes from my second monitor also gives you some idea
> of the range of options available, though many, such as universally
> customizeable keyboard shortcuts, automatic hanging indents and the multi-
> line composer, aren't as obvious. Nor is the fact that the Acrobat export
> is three or four times faster than Quark + Distiller.
>
>
>>It may be that the Windows version
>>of Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say
>>that...
>
>
> No, the opposite is true, at least in 4.x. No wandering guides issue, no
> "Cannot find volume" on save, no screen redraw corruption, no corrupted
> preferences, for example.

I have used ID a little and I agree it's nice. I have not encountered
the bugs you mention in Quark 4 and I've been using it for years. Maybe
we just have good tech people where I work.

Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html

>
> "Cannot find volume" on save.

You know, now that I think back on it I do remember this issue from
years ago when Quark 4 was first released. But it was fixed with a patch
or update. Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
some problem as well.

--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html

"Eric Gill" <> wrote

> Fred, I think you're blaming QXP for a Win95/old ATM issue. Your life
> would probably be much simpler if you moved to Win2K/XP and ditched ATM
> altogether.
>
We have similar problems under XP (we went from 98 to XP so I don't know
about win2K). If you remove a soft font from a printer listing in the
win.ini file, it does not download to a printer when using Quark (only) even
under XP, so Quark's underlying technology still relies on a Win 3.11 legacy
system. The win.ini hasn't been needed by Windows since Win95. You could be
right about it being an ongoing win/atm issues, but the problems continue to
show up under XP even tho' we have dumped ATM under XP (of course) and the
issues seem to be isolated to Quark as a program.

> Quark 5 is an atrocity on both platforms. For example, they broke some of
> the linking features, and updating links is mucho slower.

Personally, I wouldn't call Quark 5 an atrocity, just a buggy program under
Windows, and an unnecessary upgrade that accomplished very little. (I can't
speak for Macs). I'm not sure what you mean by the broken linking features,
please elaborate.

> QXP has always been slow, both platforms, working over a network

Again, I can't speak for the Mac platform, but that's too true on the PC
side. It forces us to keep all files locally when I'd much rather not.

> Quark does no font management at all but rather relies on the OS or OS
patches like ATM.

Management is be the wrong word for what I am describing, I suppose. I'm not
aware of any graphics program that "manages" fonts, per se. Quark, and only
Quark as far as I know, still uses the win.ini file to deal, in some way,
with downloaded PS fonts to a PS printer. Try taking a font out of the
printer listing for downloaded fonts in the win.ini file. You'll see what I
mean. The font will print out of any program but Quark, at least by my
experience. If you have any information that can work around this, please
let me know. I'll buy you the drink of your choice.

>That's what Acrobat is all about. And making submissions much easier with
>single files that you can apply light amounts of compression.

We do use Acrobat when it seems possible. The problem with that for my
situation is we are all too often making changes up to the last minute, even
after checking and approving blues. It's not my choice but the reality I
deal with. (Things like finding out a kid is graduating and must be added to
a commencement program, or tuition and fee changes that happen after a piece
is at the printers.) With few exceptions our printers don't know how or
won't make simple edits in Acrobat files, so on many pieces we prefer to
send collected Quark files. This has helped us meet deadlines more than
once. Again, not my preferred way of working but it is my reality.

--
Fred Doyle
www.leafpublishing.com


"Eric Gill" <> wrote in message
news:Xns93B77BBC54B8Eericvgillyahoocom@24.28.95.19 0...
> "Fred Doyle" <> wrote in
> news:I8fQa.4455$G%:
>
> > "edjh" <> wrot
> >> It may be that the Windows version of
> >> Quark is buggier than the Mac version. I have heard people say
> >> that...
> >
> > I don't use a Mac, but I work where Quark is used on many Windows
> > machines. It does tend to send Windows to a blue screen of death now
> > and then. Part of the problem is that parts of Quark Win is still
> > based on a Windows 3.11 technology. It relies on the win.ini file for
> > managing soft fonts with printers and this seems to be where it has
> > the most problems.
>
> Fred, I think you're blaming QXP for a Win95/old ATM issue. Your life
> would probably be much simpler if you moved to Win2K/XP and ditched ATM
> altogether.
>
> > Quark 5 can also be slow when using files stored on
> > network drives.
>
> Quark 5 is an atrocity on both platforms. For example, they broke some of
> the linking features, and updating links is mucho slower.
>
> However, QXP has always been slow, both platforms, working over a
> network.
>
> > I was told that this is because Quark does some copy
> > protection checking over a network, but don't know that for certain. I
> > know that prior versions of Quark did use network protocols to check
> > to see if other installations of the same license are running, but
> > that was many years ago.
>
> Still does. Tim Gill, the creative genius behind QXP, is long gone and
> Fred Ibrahimi is more paranoid than ever.
>
> > I understand Quark 6 has been rewritten to use the registry to manage
> > fonts
>
> Quark does no font management at all but rather relies on the OS or OS
> patches like ATM.
>
> > and I am hoping that this may solve some of the problems. We
> > also use InDesign to some degree, but don't find many of the printers
> > in our area offering the same level of support for that program.
>
> That's what Acrobat is all about. And making submissions much easier with
> single files that you can apply light amounts of compression.
>
> > I
> > suppose that is all part of the "inertia" mentioned in prior posts.
>
> Undoutedly. A lot of prepress shops still drop Acrobat files into Quark
> to output, because they understand how to output from QXP.

"Fred Doyle" <> wrote in
news:_7hQa.4471$G%:

> "Eric Gill" <> wrote
>
>> Fred, I think you're blaming QXP for a Win95/old ATM issue. Your life
>> would probably be much simpler if you moved to Win2K/XP and ditched
>> ATM altogether.
>>
> We have similar problems under XP (we went from 98 to XP so I don't
> know about win2K). If you remove a soft font from a printer listing in
> the win.ini file, it does not download to a printer when using Quark
> (only) even under XP, so Quark's underlying technology still relies on
> a Win 3.11 legacy system. The win.ini hasn't been needed by Windows
> since Win95. You could be right about it being an ongoing win/atm
> issues, but the problems continue to show up under XP even tho' we
> have dumped ATM under XP (of course) and the issues seem to be
> isolated to Quark as a program.

Fred, my win.ini is 828 *bytes* in size, all, AFAICT, for legacy 16-bit
apps. I have about 800 fonts installed at this time, and still use QXP
4.11 for all my magazine contracts - a fair amount of work.

I may be misremembering the actual issue. I seem to recall older versions
of the Postscript printer driver writing those entries.

>> Quark 5 is an atrocity on both platforms. For example, they broke
>> some of the linking features, and updating links is mucho slower.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't call Quark 5 an atrocity, just a buggy program
> under Windows, and an unnecessary upgrade that accomplished very
> little.

....and broke compatibility with most XTensions, meaning the upgrade cost
for anyone who relies on any significant number of them is quite
high...just to maintain the feature set you are used to.

> (I can't speak for Macs).

Same comments apply, plus STILL not being OSX native.

> I'm not sure what you mean by the
> broken linking features, please elaborate.

Drop a Quark file into a directory full of the graphics needed for a
publication and it re-links anything that is missing. QXP 5 does not do
so reliably.

<snip>

>> Quark does no font management at all but rather relies on the OS or
>> OS
> patches like ATM.
>
> Management is be the wrong word for what I am describing, I suppose.
> I'm not aware of any graphics program that "manages" fonts, per se.
> Quark, and only Quark as far as I know, still uses the win.ini file to
> deal, in some way, with downloaded PS fonts to a PS printer. Try
> taking a font out of the printer listing for downloaded fonts in the
> win.ini file.

I have *none at all*. And no printer listing, either.

I'd be happy to post the entirety of the file if you like. It's not
large.

> You'll see what I mean. The font will print out of any
> program but Quark, at least by my experience. If you have any
> information that can work around this, please let me know. I'll buy
> you the drink of your choice.

Scotch is nice, but Guinness will work just fine. Perhaps we should take
this to e-mail.

>>That's what Acrobat is all about. And making submissions much easier
>>with single files that you can apply light amounts of compression.
>
> We do use Acrobat when it seems possible. The problem with that for my
> situation is we are all too often making changes up to the last
> minute, even after checking and approving blues. It's not my choice
> but the reality I deal with. (Things like finding out a kid is
> graduating and must be added to a commencement program, or tuition and
> fee changes that happen after a piece is at the printers.) With few
> exceptions our printers don't know how or won't make simple edits in
> Acrobat files, so on many pieces we prefer to send collected Quark
> files. This has helped us meet deadlines more than once. Again, not my
> preferred way of working but it is my reality.

I have similar issues on occasion. I insist the printer be able to accept
files via the net, and send a patched page (or however much has changed).
I find this saves more time and hassle than I'd ever imagined plus keeps
my archives completely current, and won't willingly go back to the native
files + graphics + fonts method.

edjh <> wrote in news:cygQa.14969$_K5.6947
@fe01.atl2.webusenet.com:

>
>>
>> "Cannot find volume" on save.
>
> You know, now that I think back on it I do remember this issue from
> years ago when Quark 4 was first released. But it was fixed with a patch
> or update.

Actually, no, it never was, at least not in 4. The only workaround was
turning on the Autosave/backup and waiting for it to save the first time.
That (usually) worked.

I'm not sure they ever figured out exactly what was causing it.

> Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
> that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
> some problem as well.

If that sets it off, that would be good to know. Kyocera doesn't seem to be
aware of that, though.

Eric Gill wrote:

>
>>Never see it now. Do you have the latest updates? Do you have
>>that Enhanced Preview extension enabled? I seem to remember that causing
>>some problem as well.
>
>
> If that sets it off, that would be good to know. Kyocera doesn't seem to be
> aware of that, though.

Maybe that was it then. All I can say is that I have not seen this (nor
has anyone in my office--over 50 users)since just after Quark 4 was
released.
--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html