[Accurate]

I was just wondering what you guys thought about InDesign replacing Quark?

InDesign seems to much more compaitable as it belongs to the same family as so many other programs that we use on a daily basis by Adobe.

I know Quark is used as an industry standard, but will it keep up there with Adobe?

[Maerk]

It already did didn't it? It was the industry standard, it's been quickly usurped from that role - I'm sure a lot of the places that don't update their kit very often will still use it but well it seems to have lost out massively. Of all the hardcore Quark users I knew, only two of them still use it, and most agencies I've dealt with use InDesign exclusively.

[.sleep]

i learned quark in uni. never touched it since.

[designneverdies]

i worked for a magazine not that long ago and the designer who i worked with used Quark 4.0. I hated it. Probably would have been easier using paint. I like InDesign purely because like you say its part of a family so it's alot easier to pick up quickly.

[Herr Kurm]

Quackshit is dead already. Let it rot in peace.

[Accurate]

Hrm I was always under the impression that most agencies like to see that you have quark experience. Don't get me wrong, I think InDesign is 10x better, but I was wondering what all you guys thought. I'm glad you have the same thoughts.

[Herr Kurm]

Originally Posted by Accurate

Hrm I was always under the impression that most agencies like to see that you have quark experience.

They can piss right off. Do not let "agencies" dictate you what you must know, you have to be proficient in things that actually matter not some wacky quackshit. If you are really good in making nice error-free printable PDF-s, have sufficient communication skills and have an eye for design all doors are open to you.

[Do Gooder]

allot of agencys use quark. It's a good bit of software imo.

but i myself am a indesign convert.

long may the two last. competition is good.

[larrybn]

To me honest, I prefer Quark. It's much easier and faster to use and also give you everything you need without bloating the file size or the program size.

[Herr Kurm]

Originally Posted by larrybn

To me honest, I prefer Quark. It's much easier and faster to use and also give you everything you need without bloating the file size or the program size.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Do Gooder]

Herr Kurm has succumb to Creative Suititus

[dcypher.co.uk]

hopefully!

[Limbo]

Font issues on MAC Pro + CS3 + OSX left me no choice. Quark is dead, long live Indesign

[badaboom]

QXP 7.3 for me all the way. Use InDesign only when picking up the pieces from others. I was out with mate who works in pre-press and he said they get sent 50/50. Which is a good thing for competition, look at the huge price hike for CS3 when Adobe started to get good market share, what would they do if they had monopoly? QXP has had many faults over the years but 7.3 is a big improvement.

[Alexanda]

haven't used quark since 2004

[Coops]

Ha ha!! Herr Kurm has some bad memories associated with Quark! Don't mention it!

[adpitch]

I used Quark for several years. But now the ad agencies are replacing it with InDesign. The newspapers/magazine publisher will more likely use it.

[Chrisliverpool]

I have only ever used Adobe programs, and rarely use indesgn as i am mostly just doing advertisements and single pages so i use ilustrator.

[abbasinho]

InDesign is far superior to Quark. It's integration with other Adobe software is the key selling point for me. There doesn't seem to much creative element with Quark. Sometimes I have to use it at work and I just wish we'd get InDesign. Simply things like transparency and drawing vectors are some much more easier in InDesign

[centro]

Pagemaker all the way