Slashdot Mirror

Photoshop would be replaced by Acorn, which would get a bunch of resources dumped on it. Illustrator is replaced by Inkscape. Quark Xpress makes a comeback to replace InDesign. Apple iWeb, Softpress or Karelia Sandvox or someone steps up to the plate to replace Dreamweaver. Fireworks is replaced with DrawIt. And Flash is replaced by Anime Studio or something. In any case, there's a great number of companies that would be ready to jump into the fray should Adobe choose to pull out of the Mac market.

Sorry, guys, but to me these seem like choices for people who are techies first and last and writers only incidentally. There are tools out there that were designed for writing complex documents *without* needing to bloody well learn tech skills. Personally, I'm quite fond of Quark CopyDesk, which was designed for professional writers who want to explicitly be able to block out formatting stuff and just focus on the words. Let's also remember some of the useful orphans out there like Nisus. These days you can get copies for ten or twenty bucks, including everything, and the feature set is rich as the dickens. Of course, I do most of my writing in TextEdit, which replaced BBedit for me, and do the rest in Indesign so YMMV.

For vector graphics, check out Adobe Illustrator's nearest competitor, CorelDraw. For bitmap image editing, check Corel PhotoPaint (part of the CorelDraw suite) or Corel's PaintShop Pro software. For desktop publishing, consider QuarkXpress or the open source app, Scribus. For making PDF files, look into Foxit PDF Creator or PDF Creator. I don't believe there are many low priced or open-source alternatives that are comparable to Front Page or DreamWeaver. However, take a look at Kompozer (an improved version of the open-source NVU). For what it's worth, that's my advice for low cost alternatives to the Adobe Creative Suite.

Nope. Quark is Windows too.

I have been comparing both IndesignCS and Quark 6.5 for some time now. New packaging with 6.5 XTensions containing hoards of features beating Indesign by miles(May use, May not use is our decision)

What makes me wait is QPS 3.5. I am looking forward to having a competitor from Adobe for the QPS system.

The only thing that does not CHANGE is that "Change is inevitable"

With the newer customer reforms that Quark has been trying in recent future I see they are here to stay...
I can see Forums back on Quark Site http://www.quark.com/service/forums/.

Improved Customer Service and MUSIC:) I get answers to my queries, the last one was for improved Tables and there you go, I have got the better version for it already. Couldn't have expected this from Quark, but then it really takes less to try on a Toll Free number.

Discounts/discounts everywhere.

The most fulfilling part is Quark PRINTS, and with Indesign I can do a lot in Layout, but the net result is a big ??? May be Indesign can concentrate on Print then providing new features and adding bulk to the software.

The focus should be present and not the past. How many time have we thought who was wrong at the time of World War 2???

Hope we can open our eyes and see WHAT's NEW with Quark then beating around the bush...Get a new 6.5 upgrade download...

the 1st biggest print/press media company is merging with the 2nd.

Uhm, what does Macromedia have to do with print/press? All of their product portfolio is aimed at online. Adobe has products both for traditional printing (InDesign, FrameMaker, Illustrator, etc.), purely online (Go Live), and products that straddle the two worlds (Acrobat). Macromedia is all about online.

Adobe's penetration into the online world sucks. Beyond Photoshop, most web designers I know use the Macromedia suite of products (Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.) I don't think there is a real destruction of competition here. Adobe was strong in one area, Macromedia strong in another. It makes sense for Adobe to want to acquire Macromedia since they have basically reached market saturation in the markets they are in already. They have failed to compete in the newest online market for years. I don't think this is like Ford & GM wanting to merge. I think it's more like Chrystler and Mercedes Benz. The same market, to be sure, but they serve two distinct market segments. I don;t think there will be much regulatory scrutiny here.

That being said, I'm not happy about the merger. I've grown to loathe Adobe as a company, as I have seen them buy up products, then just milk them without putting in any major improvements (c.f. FrameMaker).

There is no 3rd.

That small mewing sound you hear is Quark Inc. insisting that they are not dead yet.

Quark is still around, and they have a solid user base in the media industry, not to mention the GPL:ed page layout program Scribus, which is coming along nicely...

Depends if Quark was a target or not.

I know, it's horribly wrong to make a joke about this kind of situation. But I thought the rule was Quark is fodder for anything.

wake up and realize that eventually (maybe not today, but eventually) they're going to be facing some real competition in the DTP universe

Acording to acroread they used QuarkXPress 4.1 and not even office.
Also note that solaris nowdays runs on an x66. Must be one new ones we aren't supposed top know about.

No dual G5's yet.

Thanks to the Quark Publishing System, which is not Mac OS X compatible. (from Page 3 of the article)

- Tony

Note that Quark are also having their own difficulties for Activation failure as well.

I've personally written to Quark, Adobe and Symantec and explained why it is I no longer purchase, upgrade or licence their software.

You should too.

Not that I want to defend Quark, but they are hiring programmers at their Denver facility. Also, notice that the linked article was written in April 2002, so this isn't some recent event. Quark opened their India office back in 1998, well before the bubble even started.

Adobe Photoshop is an image editing and manipulation package, originally used for retouching photos (hence the name) but nowadays capable of vastly more. For years it's been the standard for 2D graphical work in design, graphics and DTP, and with QuarkXpress* was part of the reason for the success of the Mac in those fields (there were no PC versions originally). Practically any professional graphics you see nowadays has had Photoshop used on it somewhere. Other programs offer some of the functionality - Paint Shop Pro, and The GIMP which aims to be an open-source Photoshop equivalent - and does pretty well for a lot of things - but Photoshop is still the professional standard.

(* QuarkXPress is pretty much the standard page layout package, most newspapers use it. It too was for a long time only available for the Mac.)

No offense to the wonderful people creating the Scribus software. It's great to see options other than pay-your-left-nut-for-software.

However, this is mostly pie-in-the-sky. With the new release of Quark for OS X (http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/mac_osx.html ), I bet many, many more OS X boxen will be sold, averting any "Great Migration" to Linux anytime soon by the DTP folk.

Maybe like, here. Or here. Someday indeed.

QuarkXPress for OS X is supposedly out, as of this week. See http://www.quark.com/products/xpress/.

And of course, since releasing a native version of XPress two years late isn't enough of a show of contempt for their customers, it has product activation to deal with:

No hardware key is required to activate your license, and you can upgrade your hardware up to five times before you are required to reactivate your QuarkXPress software. QuarkXPress will run for five days before activation is required. After this grace period expires, QuarkXPress goes into reduced functionality mode.

I can upgrade five times? Thanks, Quark! A grace period? Wow, you're so generous, Quark!

OS X is now a real OS. It has Quark XPress...

So, how does that explain Quark, Inc.?

Everybody's a pessimist these days.

If the person comes to you asking for what else to use, you might recommend QuarkXPress. Not free, but hey, it's not Adobe, either.

(disclaimer: I haven't used QuarkXPress myself, but a friend of mine who does this sort of stuff for a living tells me they're fairly comparable packages)

If only they were so eager! Even with outrageous pricing, bad tech support, late upgrades, and buggy software, Quark is still preferred by a landslide majority of service bureaus, and is the only thing they teach in graphic design school.

The last major release of Quark (5) was actually quite recent. It is not OS X compatible, but it does attempt to include web authoring capabilities, putting it into direct competition with Dreamweaver - a program that is more popular with web designers, easier to learn, more powerful, several hundred dollars cheaper, classic-mode compatible with OS X, and on the fast track to native support.

While Quark was working on their latest little gem, Apple ripped down their entire operating system architecture and started from scratch to build an operating system built on a different kernel, but able to work with with the same kind of interface, worked the bugs out to the point that it is now more stable than its predecessor, and able to run a native version of something as complex as Photoshop. And Quark accuses Apple of being inadequate. I know who I'd rather believe.

I wonder if Quark is really so clueless, or if their PHBs have settled into a de-facto retirement, and are just using their momentum to ride the gravy train until they run out of track.

I'm sure this will be lost in the shuffle and consumed by the abundance of posts - but here goes ...

There's a little thing called "Industry Standard". Whether it's the best way, the right way, the cheapest way, or the most effective way doesn't really mean dick when you hit the corporate level. They want the stuff that everybody else is using. Talking someone into using a new product that isn't very compatible with everyone else is rather difficult.

Example:

Quark Inc makes a layout program called QuarkXpress. It's the industry standard. It costs over $800. Adobe Systems Inc makes a competetive (some say better ) layout program called InDesign. It costs $700. The really big difference is that Adobe GIVES its software to design classes to be taught to the students, Quark requires the school to purchase their software.

This has been happening (PageMaker before InDesign) for about six years. Quark is still the industry standard and I don't see it changing for another year. Fortunately Quark screwed the pooch and didn't make Xpress native for OS X, and everyone is dumping them. It'll take time to filter through the entire graphic arts arena.

The same thing is going to happen with Microsoft. Their products are industry standard. They're going to have to make a MAJOR mistake before anyone else comes along to take the lead.

~LoudMusic

I'm sure this will be lost in the shuffle and consumed by the abundance of posts - but here goes ...

There's a little thing called "Industry Standard". Whether it's the best way, the right way, the cheapest way, or the most effective way doesn't really mean dick when you hit the corporate level. They want the stuff that everybody else is using. Talking someone into using a new product that isn't very compatible with everyone else is rather difficult.

Example:

Quark Inc makes a layout program called QuarkXpress. It's the industry standard. It costs over $800. Adobe Systems Inc makes a competetive (some say better ) layout program called InDesign. It costs $700. The really big difference is that Adobe GIVES its software to design classes to be taught to the students, Quark requires the school to purchase their software.

This has been happening (PageMaker before InDesign) for about six years. Quark is still the industry standard and I don't see it changing for another year. Fortunately Quark screwed the pooch and didn't make Xpress native for OS X, and everyone is dumping them. It'll take time to filter through the entire graphic arts arena.

The same thing is going to happen with Microsoft. Their products are industry standard. They're going to have to make a MAJOR mistake before anyone else comes along to take the lead.

~LoudMusic

Pantone Hexachrome is a six-color ultra high-fidelity process for enhanced color reproduction. Introduced in 1995, Hexachrome includes a new ink set, separations, proofing, and color selector. The proprietary ink set developed by Pantone consists of enhanced versions of the subtractive primaries yellow, magenta, and cyan, along with black, orange, and green inks.

Carl G. Jung
--

For PageMaker, CorelDraw or Ventura Publisher. CorelDraw is better for artsy-fartsy shite; Ventura is better for more traditional layout.

--
Knowledge is, in every country, the surest basis of public happiness.

Anybody want to set up a website along the lines of Mr. Cranky , but rating politicians instead? Or a place to read legislation converted into 'everyday language' - can't be harder than explaining computer code in everyday language. Politics is o so very dry. Somebody should do something about that.

I love code. I love the law. I love them both for the same reason: logic and intricacy. What the law lacks in consistency, it makes up in rock-hard 'sneak up behind you with a 2x4' relevance. Both are dry, but if anything code is drier, in the sense of being 'impersonal'

You can't *truly* translate law into common language for the same reason that the only true description of a program is the program itself: namely, any layman's description is likely to gloss over precisely the elements of phraseology or punctuation that will turn out to be most ambiguous (and hence critical) later. Most laymen could do as little with such a lay explanation as they could with an explanation of Perl or APL code. Debugging is a skilled art in law or software.

That doesn't mean that I don't advocate study. i most certainly do. I wish more people were taught a bit more about the law in their (roughly) 12 years of state-mandated education. If ignorance of the law is no excuse [unless you're a NZ judge] [R.S., c.C-34, s.19 in Canadian law] [Code of Hammurabi ;->) [random cool article on the general subject] [Google search] then shouldn't the state take a bit better care to assure we aren't ignorant?

Nah, we can't even teach spelling, grammar, math, science, history, geography or sex.