Existing users, 
 QuarkXPress - 8.12Page 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
Fair software, bad business practices 
- Version: 8.12, 10/17/2009 08:11PM PST
hkim
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Plus . . .
The Quark Lobby on VersionTracker - Version: 8.12, 9/26/2009 01:45AM PST
(1 of 1 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.
Re: AMAZING PROGRAM - Version: 8.12, 9/18/2009 07:00AM PST
(1 of 3 users found this comment useful)
tmccain
>> Quark have come a LONG way!! this version brings me back to Quark from Adobe!
>> Try it out, everything Adobe has promised is in Quark already!
>> Great job Quark and glad to be back with you guyz.
You clearly must be drawing a paycheck from Quark because it hasn't come that far. Why would I spend $250 to upgrade my Quark when for a few hundred more I can upgrade my entire Adobe CS Suite? No thanks!
>> Try it out, everything Adobe has promised is in Quark already!
>> Great job Quark and glad to be back with you guyz.
You clearly must be drawing a paycheck from Quark because it hasn't come that far. Why would I spend $250 to upgrade my Quark when for a few hundred more I can upgrade my entire Adobe CS Suite? No thanks!
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
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!?