Existing users, 
QuarkXPress
Page layout and design for print and web.
Version: 8.12
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE?
Feedback Type: Review
Contributed by: macguruguy Wednesday, January 28 2009 @ 09:32 PM PST
Product Platform: MacOSX
Used Product For: Over One Year
Recommend Product: YES
I don't understand the comments on this page. I have used Quark for many years. This most recent version is considerably better in some ways than version 7. There ARE bugs, but hopefully they will be resolved. But if you're NOT a Quark user, then WHY are you on this page? Personally, I can't stand InDesign, or Pagemaker for that matter -- but you don't see my comments regarding those programs on those pages, do you? The battle between Quark and InDesign has been long-standing, as it was with Pagemaker. There are benefits to each. Quark is a better layout program, and InDesign is exactly what it's name implies, a design program. If you didn't spend the money for the program, and you're just adding your personal preference comments to this page, then you really don't know what you are talking about. I USE Quark every single day for my job -- and it is relatively decent, with some minor separation issues (which may not even be Quark's fault).
Overall Rating:
Ease of Use:
Support:
Features:
Quality / Stability:
Price:
Comments
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE? - almaink
Some people are forced to use this application because we work in prepress. That means we have to take jobs made in Quark and output those files to print on film or printing plates. Quark use to be THE application to use. But since version 7 added the ability to use transparency and no way to export it as live transparency, the program has been nothing but trouble. Until Quark gets with the times and stops using a postscript workflow it's worthless IMO.Thursday, January 29 2009 @ 08:33 AM PST
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE? - charlieartist
Alma-Is this mainly an issue when using transparencies and spots?
I use both ID and Quark, but the art I send for press-ready art is pretty much the same--PDFs built to X-1a specs, which flatten transparency by default.
I will admit, though--the flattening of transparency in Quark still leaves something to be desired...
Thursday, January 29 2009 @ 12:54 PM PST
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE? - DavidRavenMoon
"Until Quark gets with the times and stops using a postscript workflow it's worthless IMO."The way everyone is going now is with a PDF based workflow, using RIPs such as Printergy EVO, PREPS and RAMpage.
Quark works great in these environments.
Lately I've been using Quark more and more for new jobs. It's just faster to get a layout together than with InDesign.
Wednesday, August 05 2009 @ 07:32 AM PDT
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE? - DavidRavenMoon
You should NEVER use transparency with spots. Spot colors can't be transparent. You want to use a lighter CMYK version of the color. In fact you should never use transparency at all. It wont rip and has to be flattened, so why bother?Do your fancy stuff in Illustrator where it belongs, not in Quark or InDesign. The people who complain about this stuff are newbees, or have never learned the correct way to set up jobs to print. These same people don't even understand what a spot color is, and also just love to send in layered Photoshop files and Illustrator files with no fonts embedded!
Quark is just fine, it's the people who don't know their orifice from a joint that are the real problem. And I've been in this field since 1979.
Thursday, January 29 2009 @ 02:27 PM PST
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE? - charlieartist
David--this is in line with my sentiments.If there is complicated imagery to deal with, I also use Illustrator or Photoshop to do it. Far greater control, and more predictable results. I have enough transparency issues with ID-created PDFs as well. This isn't a fault of the app, but its users.
I'm still shocked at times to see the messed up art coming from high-end design houses. Trying to walk some of these folks through the solution? Forget it. Makes one wonder what their high fees are doing for the client...
Friday, January 30 2009 @ 06:23 AM PST
If you don't like Quark, WHY ARE YOU HERE? - yesweekend
Seems like the folks that you critizise have never used Quark (or couldnīt handle it). Being experienced with both Quark and Indesign due to customers demands I can see pros and cons for both apps. Quark is still my favorite.Reply to This
Thursday, January 29 2009 @ 07:21 AM PST