MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Discuss functionality of QuarkXPress 10, 9 & 8 (and before) (excluding Digital Publishing).
For Digital Publishing functionality please refer to forums in the "Digital Publishing" group.

As QuarkXPress 1 thru 10 are not supported by Quark anymore, please upgrade to a newer version of QuarkXPress if you are looking for official support. Support options for supported versions are here: http://support.quark.com
longtimedesigner
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 11:01

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by longtimedesigner » 18 Sep 2005, 01:10

[quote:d460073063]Not everything in life is "better" or "worse" than something else. When you open your mind to "different", you'll be much less bitter and acerbic.

I guess it's "better" to be "different" than to be "better," since advocating being "better" is "being ascerbic." But, if one advocates being, "different," and claiming that it is "better" than being "better," is that an ascerbic perspective?

Anyway, I missed the part where Jim placed "everything in life" on the "better" or "worse" dichotomy. I thought he was commenting on whether it would be better for Quark to be more original in its identity and positioning.

Clearly, however, Quark isn't being, "different" anyway. So, how do you reconcile that? Personally, I to think it would be better for Quark to be "different," especially if that difference includes innovation, customer loyalty, functionality, stability, etc. An unoriginal logo doesn't offer any of that.


Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Jim Oblak » 19 Sep 2005, 11:12

[img]../../themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">%20[strong]Linda:[/strong]I%20don't%20see%20XPress%20as%20"lagging%20behind[/img]
Linda, you are right that InDesign and QuarkXPress are not identical and may not be suited for the exact same tasks. HOWEVER: Quark, Adobe, and the publishing industry acknowledge that these two apps are competitors and in order to compete, Quark needs to be distinctive. If all it does is follow the bandwagon, it will never again be a leader.

[img]../../themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">%20[strong]Linda:[/strong]There%20is%20no%20reply,%20as%20you're%20continuing%20to%20maintain%20a%20"better[/img]
There is no reply as you are incapable of explaining how an unoriginal logo and corporate image is going to help show that Quark is distinctive. I don't care if they need to be distinguished from InDesign or PageStream, Quark is simply not being very original in their identity or their product. I hope that this changes.

Maybe many of us would not be so sour if we were not served a lemon.

kpowell
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Sep 2005, 10:22

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by kpowell » 19 Sep 2005, 11:40

Maybe many of us would not be so sour if we were not served a lemon.[/quote]


Some of us have been making lemonade with this program for a long time. We sometimes get creative and make pie or maybe sherbert or just a little squeeze in the tea.

Quark picked a "Used" logo. Good Design - it must be, that is why so many people are using it. InDesign has more flaws than Quark. We have just found all the flaws in Quark because we have been using it for so long. The program will do everything that InDesign will do, it is just not built in as bloatware and the extensions you get to do this stuff usually works.

There was no stealing of logos, it was a mistake. Big one but just a mistake. It is only a logo and it too can be changed.

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Jim Oblak » 19 Sep 2005, 12:06

[strong]kpowell:[/strong]InDesign has more flaws than Quark. We have just found all the flaws in Quark because we have been using it for so long. The program will do everything that InDesign will do.

Since you are new, I cannot determine if you are trying to pull our leg or if yours has already been ripped clear off. But since this thread is about Quark's unimaginitive new identity and not an application feature debate, I'll try not to imagine why you would make such an assertion. :lol:

longtimedesigner
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 11:01

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by longtimedesigner » 19 Sep 2005, 12:16

[quote:e27c6a49a1]The program will do everything that InDesign will do,

Oh, really?

kpowell
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Sep 2005, 10:22

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by kpowell » 19 Sep 2005, 13:54

Jim and Longtimedesigner...

Why Bother...



It is a new logo and a mistake. Linda had the right stance on the whole matter - the two programs are different.

I am far from new to this whole debate of programs. I just happen to have used Quark since 1988 and it fits like a glove - my entire companies workflow revolves around Quark because it is stable and efficient. Indesign has been problematic for me so it has been easier and more efficient to create in Quark. That makes it a better program because time is MONEY.

Coke and Pepsi... who's to say? But if you are such the InDesign lover, why are you on this page?

almaink
Posts: 237
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 08:38

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by almaink » 19 Sep 2005, 14:27

Not Jim or the other guy, but I'm using Quack because I have to, not because I want to. Unfortunately some of my customers (2) still haven't seen the light and use Quack so I'm forced to use it to output their files. Between the piss poor screen display of fonts and Quacks strange interpretation of the postscript code it's a wonder any of the jobs I receive in Quack even rip. Fortunately this users forum is here and I come here to see if anyones got fixes for issues I now have or may encounter late, and I'm sure thats why the others come here as well.

Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by Jim Oblak » 19 Sep 2005, 14:34

kpowell, I was referring to you being new to this forum, not being new to Quark.

The issue that longtimedesigner and I take with your previous post is that you allege the two programs can do the same thing but that you also side with Linda about the two programs being different. Settle on something. You are confusing yourself and others.

Yes, time is money. That is why if you knew both programs equally, you would find that InDesign may indeed accomplish tasks faster and save plenty of money. So the failure is not any one program: it is one's own lack of education. Folks can argue all they want that Quark is more familiar but at one point, those folks were new to Quark too. You can't stand still in the publishing world. I'm not advocating that everyone 'switch': I simply suggest that they do not act so ignorant.

longtimedesigner
Posts: 79
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 11:01

MUST SEE: Ummm, Quark Logo?!

Post by longtimedesigner » 19 Sep 2005, 15:10

[quote:25a16cff31]Indesign has been problematic for me so it has been easier and more efficient to create in Quark. That makes it a better program because time is MONEY.

Wow, you're way off on this. Comprehensive studies have been conducted showing how much more efficient InDesign is than Quark.

http://www.pfeifferreport.com/dtalabs.html

As far as "time is money" indicating which is the better program, InDesign beats Quark hands down.

I've been in DTP since before 1988 by the way. InDesign runs rings around Quark in terms of time saved and quality of final product.

And to answer your question of why I am on this page -- I'm egalitarian. I like sharing my knowledge with others in the business.

Post Reply

Return to “QuarkXPress 8, 9 & 10: General”