QuarkXPress - 8.15Page layout and design for print and web. |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews
Troubleshooting
Usage Tips
Developer Notes
Commentary
Featured Reviews
8.15 clears crash problem on Intel Macs 



- Version: 8.15, 1/22/2010 05:18PM PST
(0 of 1 users found this comment useful)
Martin Turner--2008
Fair software, bad business practices 



- Version: 8.12, 10/17/2009 08:11PM PST
(2 of 2 users found this comment useful)
hkim
I have just tried the 8.2 version after having stayed with the 3.2 version for years and the current version is quite good in both GUI and features. I was able to import older documents without any problem as well. The only performance issues I experienced were with the way Xpress caches memory for images and other purposes. One really needs more than the recommended 1 Gig of installation space on their boot drive. There were other issues such as requiring one to install to the boot drive ONLY which is a strange imposition upon the user. So far I have found none of the horrible bugs that have haunted versions 4-7, thus Quark seems to finally be making headway in perfecting the glacially slow move to OSX. That is why I have used 3.2 up to now.
The real issue for users of today's Xpress IMHO, is the preditory pricing policy of Quark. Users in different countries pay different amounts for Xpress though it is the same software. This means that someone in Australia or Europe is forced to spend a good bit more money for the same software and this is poor judgement on the part of Quark. I note that Sibelius has tried the same model for their software and it and poor programming for OSX has driven away more than a few users. As noted by one other reviewer below, why pay so much for Xpress when for a little more one can update their complete Adobe suite!?
The real issue for users of today's Xpress IMHO, is the preditory pricing policy of Quark. Users in different countries pay different amounts for Xpress though it is the same software. This means that someone in Australia or Europe is forced to spend a good bit more money for the same software and this is poor judgement on the part of Quark. I note that Sibelius has tried the same model for their software and it and poor programming for OSX has driven away more than a few users. As noted by one other reviewer below, why pay so much for Xpress when for a little more one can update their complete Adobe suite!?
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Plus . . .
The Quark Lobby on VersionTracker - Version: 8.12, 9/26/2009 01:45AM PST
(2 of 4 users found this comment useful)
Clams McShrew
It has come to my attention that some reviewers in this forum may have undisclosed professional ties to Quark. There is nothing wrong with company affiliates posting comments. However to do so without mentioning this relationship is deceptive and arguably inappropriate.
The reviews in question may be coming from the same person, using aliases, or may represent a larger, more organized and concerted effort to influence this forum.
Normal, unaffiliated end-users may recognize the remarks in question. Simply ask yourself if the review you read appears to describe the application that you know of as Quark 8.x (barely improved since the old days) or if it seems to describe some other ideal, chimerical, essentially non-existent page-layout program that we all still wish for, but do not yet have.
Another clue to this deception, are reviewers who insist on attacking those of us who post sensible critical comments. This in itself should send up a Big Red 72 pt Helvetica Bold Flag.
There is no need to harass those of us with critical views of Quark. It's bad form. Some of us have been using this program, in all its dubious glory and imperfection, for better or worse, till death do us part, since 1987! Our views are relevant, and from a friendlier company, would be invited, valued and appreciated.
The reviews in question may be coming from the same person, using aliases, or may represent a larger, more organized and concerted effort to influence this forum.
Normal, unaffiliated end-users may recognize the remarks in question. Simply ask yourself if the review you read appears to describe the application that you know of as Quark 8.x (barely improved since the old days) or if it seems to describe some other ideal, chimerical, essentially non-existent page-layout program that we all still wish for, but do not yet have.
Another clue to this deception, are reviewers who insist on attacking those of us who post sensible critical comments. This in itself should send up a Big Red 72 pt Helvetica Bold Flag.
There is no need to harass those of us with critical views of Quark. It's bad form. Some of us have been using this program, in all its dubious glory and imperfection, for better or worse, till death do us part, since 1987! Our views are relevant, and from a friendlier company, would be invited, valued and appreciated.
Most Recent Replies: View All 4 Replies
- The Quark Lobby on VersionTracker (6 replies)
I have now been using Quark for 14 years, from version 3.32. I've also used Pagemaker, Ventura Publisher, Indesign, and some budget applications such as PagePlus.
I felt Quark lost the plot with version 5. Version 6 was better, and 7 was better than that. It's only version 8, in combination with today's hardware, that has given me the old 'quick Quark' feel that I had under version 4 for System 8. By comparison, Indesign feels very sluggish, and, now that Adobe have boosted their upgrade prices, I'm not longer seeing benefits in keeping CS3 updated.
Quark suffers from dreadful documentation — like most modern software, there is no book, just online help — and from a few unintuitive controls. On the other hand, the speed, including speed of refresh, makes it a winner for time-critical work. We haven't got into the advanced shared composition features, and may never do so — the job of design and publishing hasn't changed a great deal, and features we never missed are not necessarily welcome.
Quark is not really a winning application for multimedia or web authoring. You can do much more with Flash in Apple's KeyNote, if working with Flash itself is too arduous. Virtually any HTML editing platform beats it for web-pages, though it is possible to mock them up in Quark and then finish them in Dreamweaver. On the other hand, the extra features don't interfere with the core features.