Existing users, 
Quark is horrible... And it hasn't changed at all. I recently tried the new version 7 and thought I might have clicked version 4 by accident. But alas it still looks old, outdated and cheap.
Admittedly I'm only a young designer who's been using a mac for casual and professional work for may be 5-8 years. I somehow came into using Freehand at first until I met a designer who told me to change to InDesign - "You'll hate it at first, but make the change, you'll thank me for it." And I do.
Quark on the other hand just doesn't work - no one has ever told me to change to it, many have told me not to bother to use it.
I open a new document, and I want to begin typing... So i draw a text box and begin typing but wait... I've then gotta select the text tool to type! I just drew a text box, isn't it kind of obvious what I want to do! The only "quick switch" to the text tool I've been able to find is Apple-Option-Tab to change to the next tool (as opposed to T in InDesign) but if I want to change back to the pointer, I've then got to do Apple-Option-Shift-Tab to change back... A "quick key" more commonly known as The Claw. There may be an easier way to do it, truth be told a lot of my hate is spawned from ignorance. But you know why I'm ignorant? They don't seem to make it easy to learn, and they don't make me want to learn it! When I open InDesign, I feel like someone is saying, "Hi there, have a seat. What can we do for you today?" When I open Quark I get "What? Let's get this over with shall we". Something like switching between tools with a simple letter should be a standard practice by now... Hell Freehand even did it years ago. I won't go into a lot of detail but I think Quark really does need a serious revamp if it's ever going to keep the current status it seems to have somehow fluked.
I heard Adobe were going to buy Quark just to shut it down. I hope that's true.
QuarkXPress
Page layout and design for print and web.
Version: 8.12
Sorry but...
Feedback Type: Commentary
Contributed by: adrian.wills Wednesday, November 01 2006 @ 12:58 PM PST
Product Platform: MacOSX
Used Product For: Less than a month
Recommend Product: NO
Comments
I beg to differ... - Gladmax411
I beg to differ regarding your assessment of Freehand. While it is technically regarded as a drawing program, its support of multiple-page layouts allowed it to compete with page layout programs, and I have clients who have been using Freehand for all of their vector-based desktop publishing needs. Unfortunately, Adobe is dropping Freehand in favor of Illustrator, which is an excellent program but it's a shame to lose Freehand. Too many choices!Anyway, it's a shame about Quark. Ten years ago, v.3.32 was the best, a classic, but it had flaws then that were never fixed. Now it's only a matter of time until it dies out, like PageMaker or ReadySetGo, along with it Quark the company, because it's their only product. And so it goes...
Tuesday, November 07 2006 @ 02:59 AM PST
Sorry but... - mongold
First, I don't have to switch tools. After creating a type box, I just started typing. Perhaps it is a preference? I tried it in both Quark 6.5.2 and Quark 7.0.2. To get back to the "pointer tool" just hold down the apple key. Its not really that difficult. Perhaps you shouldn't be writing a review if you are that ignorant.Next, I am a little tired of designers whining about how much Quark sucks and how great InDesign is. There is a lot more to software than a pretty interface and lots of features. I can't tell you how many times I have cursed Adobe's implementation of transparency. 95% of the Quark files I get go through with no problems. Only about 50% of the InDesign files do.
Is Quark perfect, no, but neither is any of their competition. Rate it on its own merit.
Monday, November 20 2006 @ 08:15 AM PST
Sorry but... - adrian.wills
Ok, perhaps it is a preference. My point is it didn't seem very simple from the get go... if i have a picture inside a box (which i had to get a plug in to use just cause it was a photoshop file - the standard application a picture is likely to come from), how do i change the size of the picture without changing the size of the box?Tuesday, January 23 2007 @ 01:36 PM PST
Sorry but... - smith9
I get tired of pre-press people writing reviews too — designers have every right (including the original poster) to give feedback based on aesthetics. We're DESIGNERS, we make a living based off of the assumption that good aesthetics make things work better. If you're having trouble with InDesign transparency, update your postscript or RIP software. I've been giving printers InDesign PDFs (with transparency) since 1.5 and have rarely had a problem.To the original poster: I've been a designer for a while. I've been through Aldus, then Adobe Pagemaker, Quark, and am now in InDesign. InDesign is, in my opinion, much better than Quark. It is a page layout program and makes no apologies. It doesn't try to be a Flash-lite, or HTML-lite, it's just a page-layout program.
Quark hasn't changed much at all since 3.3. Their best new features have been in InDesign for quite some time. I don't think it's perfect, and I really feel Adobe needs some competition to keep it's edge, but I think Quark stopped being competition some time ago. The only people I know who still use it aren't comfortable learning new software.
Monday, January 08 2007 @ 08:26 PM PST
Sorry but... - jbohn
I am a designer AND work in pre-press. We've used InDesign since version 2 with maybe 1 or 2 hiccups along the way, nothing major. I hated the switch at first - now when I have to go back to Quark, I absolutely abhor it.Monday, January 08 2007 @ 09:07 PM PST
Sorry but... - hankgood1
Quark is great at what it does well which is multi-page documents. It's solution to text and picture box placement in a layout is, to me, the most sensible to use for anyone who navigates/constructs a page using numeric (x, y) coordinates. Text box links, page numbering, runaround are the best solution. Type leading, spacing, tabs, style sheets and indents are beautifully integrated into the program.Quark sucks at interface. If you invest in third party xtensions (badiaxt.com) you can make it near perfect. Why they will not make the program easier to navigate I will never understand - people are correct when they say that it's as if the developers have never worked in the business. I think their reluctance to integrate pdf (an Adobe technology) really set them back.
InDesign is great for one-page layouts. I find their text box, picture box and text editing implementation to be frustrating to manipulate. Their pdf export, shadowing and interface/pallet design are what makes it hard to pass up. I would always prefer Quark to build a multi page catalog/magazine because it's interface is build for that type document. Conversely, I would use InDesign to build a single page magazine ad.
Quark can be made to be the better solution for me if they will integrate some of their xtension developer's interface ideas - but it might be too late or they might be too hard headed to do it.
Tuesday, January 09 2007 @ 07:15 AM PST
Sorry but... - Ataritox
FYI, Freehand is not a desktop publishing application. So you really should not compare it to Quark. It is a vector drawing program like illustrator.(your correct about it being an unnecessary step to have to make a text box THEN select the text tool. I wish they changed that as well but you have to realize a lot of people are used to that having used it for many many years.)
Reply to This
Thursday, November 02 2006 @ 08:32 AM PST