Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

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
soupfighter
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 May 2005, 15:07

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by soupfighter » 27 May 2005, 15:16

I just read Bill Troop's highly spun article on how pathetic InDesign's typography is and how glorious the future will be when Quark catches up to ID 1's functionality.

There was maybe one good suggestion in there (it would be nice to have some user control over how far to have items hang outside the text frame when using Optical Margin Alignment, but that was it, the rest was full on flame whining about problems that don't actually exist.

The article was so pathetic and needy sounding ("Accept me! Need me! Love me!"), it was plain sickening.

My question is does Mr. Troop work for Quark and, if not, how much do they pay him? If they don't pay him then I have never seen more gratuitous boot licking in my life.

Sorry, Quark, ID's typography rocks and your's... well, your's definitely does not.

Scott McCullough
Posts: 22
Joined: 22 Feb 2005, 13:49

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by Scott McCullough » 27 May 2005, 15:46

Where did you read this review?

Addendum:

Ah, I found it.
http://macdirectory.com/newmd/MAC/pages ... XPress6.5/

Yes, I'd say that qualifies as lapdog material!

fab1
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 13:16

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by fab1 » 27 May 2005, 17:04

What a laughable review. I know I'm opening up to be flamed here. FWIW I have used Quark for over 15 years, and ID for about 2 now.

But these bits REALLY made me laugh ...
"But Quark is responding to these challenges with a transformational vigor that is astonishing industry observers and customers alike."
Astonishing? I'm only astonished at how much it costs!!

"First let's glance at the highlights of 6.0: native OS X, multiple undo/redo, built-in PDF creation, instant conversion of layouts between print and Web, multiple layouts with different specs"
Hmmm .. let's see ... native OSX - BIG DEAL!!! Multiple undo - OOOOOOOO! Built in PDF creation: Yeah, if you want a hugely bloated PDF, and no way to make PDF X/1-a directly from the app. Conversion of layouts between print and Web: Does ANYONE use this for web design? Multiple layouts with different specs: Ok. Maybe someone uses this feature.

"Quark must support OpenType layout fully in version 7, because this is just about the only typographical thing that InDesign does right." Egad! I can always tell a PDF was created in Quark because of the horriffic word breaks.

He didn't mention how much it crashes, or how poorly it renders type on screen, or how it leave nice scroll bar "artifacts" on your screen, etc, etc ...

Ok. Flame on.

soupfighter
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 May 2005, 15:07

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by soupfighter » 27 May 2005, 18:10

Yes, I should have mentioned that I got to this review from the Think Different about Quark and InDesign link on the http://www.Quark.com web page.

Bivouac Ponzetti
Posts: 40
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 09:12

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by Bivouac Ponzetti » 28 May 2005, 04:38

I've been very unimpressed by much of Quark's recent messaging regarding XPress vs. InDesign, especially from writers who ought to know better. This article is another example of a head scratchingly uninformed opinion.

InDesign's typography blows XPress away. Period. XPress needs to add OpenType support (which they're doing for v.7), but that's just one area in which they are currently far behind (CS2 has frame based baseline grids. Yummy.) This particular piece is a joke. The question of unstated biases and payoffs is a good one, for Mr Troop has affixed his name to to an embarrassingly misinformed piece.

fab1
Posts: 10
Joined: 26 Mar 2005, 13:16

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by fab1 » 28 May 2005, 12:52

The recent dramatic drop in Quark pricing makes me wonder. Quark, in Canada, was hovering around $1,500 for the past year or two. Last I checked v6.1 was down to $960 CDN. Interestingly it's the only piece of software at my local vendor that has it listed as "NO RETURNS".

Despiration?

willmark
Posts: 241
Joined: 03 Jun 2004, 07:05

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by willmark » 31 May 2005, 08:03

ROTFLMFAO!

You have GOT to be kidding me. This review is the biggest butt-kissing ever!

6.5 can't even hold a candle to ID2 let alone IDCS2.

[quote:cb0cecc85c]QuarkVista is radical. For most jobs, it is much faster than the InDesign/Photoshop combination.

Well I guess we should just turn in all of our copies of Photoshop its not needed anymore. Anyone remember Quark's ill-fated Wrapture or whatever the hell it was. Yeah, that was supposed to be be the "Photoshop killer" too and it never saw the light of day; looks like they dusted off some old code...

[quote:cb0cecc85c]Fred Ebrahimi, the business brain who along with programmer-visionary Tim Gill helped found the company, has left the company for good. Ebrahimi was a brilliant company builder with prudence and competence, but he had two faults that got Quark into substantial trouble: he didn't like customers and he didn't like Macs.

Gee Really, that's like saying water is wet or fire is hot... Guess what dearly departed Fred, We didn't like you, your software, or your distain for Macs either.

Mark

Jeff Zimmerman
Posts: 16
Joined: 23 May 2005, 11:38

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by Jeff Zimmerman » 31 May 2005, 09:33

[quote:85458361da]ROTFLMFAO!

You have GOT to be kidding me. This review is the biggest butt-kissing ever!

Ditto, willmark. I thought the first issue of X-Ray was butt-kissing propaganda, but at least you could find something useful if you read in between the unfounded wisecracks and misinformation. This article is just pathetic.

If you prefer Quark to InDesign, that's fine. I can respect people who just say they don't like InDesign and acknowledge it's a personal preference. But you can't attack it with really weak arguments and expect to be taken seriously. All this article does is appeal to people who already believe this anyway and attempt to brainwash those who don't know any better. FUD! FUD! FUD!

The most pathetic part of the whole article is where he actually attacks InDesign's typography where the program really outshines Quark. Some features may not be 100% perfect, but they're still light years ahead of what Quark has available. And they're not perfect in Quark, either. If you like typography (as I do), typesetting in Indesign is fun. Typesetting in Quark is a chore, and so is creating a PDF.

The whole article is just sad. I can't wait until we get our copies of CS2 and dump Quark for good.

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

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by Jim Oblak » 31 May 2005, 10:04

Perhaps someone should ask bill@macobserver.com if he was reviewing software that he paid for or if it was provided free to him for review. I am sure his attitude would be different if he had wasted his own money on the app.

His review is not too bad. There is some hint of intelligence about the printing industry in there. However, I see two glaring issues:

1) [strong]stupid section heading:[/strong]Photoshop PSD format support that is better than InDesign's

This is purely subjective. While it is nice that Quark allows the selective enabling/disabling of layers in a PSD file, the inability to utilize PSD background transparency in Quark is reason enough for the educated designer to prefer InDesign. Progessive designers are tossing out most 1-bit clipping paths in favor of 8-bit transparency masks in PSD files. One must assume that Bill is not progressive as he is only now reviewing Quark 6.x.

2) [strong]Bill Troop:[/strong]Adobe has gambled that its target customers will not be able to tell the difference between a professional font rigorously spaced by its original designer, and a complete mess-up spaced by its guesstimator. I do not agree. My faith in designers is greater than that.

Bill fails to realize that some page designers may have a better clue about design than him and a font designer. Certainly there is nothing wrong with giving tools to designers. A screwdriver might be misused as a hammer but a skilled mechanic knows what to do with it. Citing a single font issue with InDesign's kerning tricks is poor journalism


I am actually surprised that Quark is promoting this article from their main page as it discredits 6.5 in some cases and favors an unreleased version 7. True journalists compare substance, not the intangible. But this article is clearly a sign of Bill copulating over a QuarkXPress package. This is not a serious article that equally compares design applications.

Where is the big box photo of InDesign?

Where does he get his 80% statistic?

Bill seems to be smoking something.

larsen67
Posts: 496
Joined: 31 Mar 2005, 03:49

Bill Troop = Quark Lap Dog?

Post by larsen67 » 31 May 2005, 11:06

Perhaps as a true journalist he was testing the truth in the claim
"Quark 6.5 The most fun you've had since sniffing markers"
A breath of fresh air after some serious ass kissing!!!! me thinks
now where did i put that bloody pen...

Post Reply

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