Bloody disgrace

Kick back on the couch and discuss all things not directly related to QuarkXPress.
Jim Oblak
Posts: 1009
Joined: 04 Jun 2004, 19:06

Bloody disgrace

Post by Jim Oblak » 16 Jun 2004, 00:12

"We hear..."?

Saying that Q7 will support OTF is just as useful as saying 'buy InDesign' because it will resolve the issue of OTF support. This does nothing to help existing users and may only provide false hope until a solid product is released.

Quark 7 is the carrot held in front of the horse to keep it moving on the path. The horse wants to eat now.

PC Graphics Report
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Jun 2004, 19:46

Bloody disgrace

Post by PC Graphics Report » 16 Jun 2004, 01:45

Then eat what you have,
Version 6 is what we have and our job is to make the most we can of it.
To throw up your hands and complain will not make it better. If you need to go elsewhere to get your work done, so be it.
No one is compelling us to work with Quark 6, (unless your boss is!) in fact there are many people who are still using version 4.x for all sorts of reasons. I personally use XPress and InDesign, and look forward to both of them getting better and making my life easier/more fun.
But no one is saying stay here because version 7 is going to arrive someday. I was commenting on OP fonts as others have brought up the subject and I too have it a drag that XPress does not yet support them
John

turkey
Posts: 1
Joined: 15 Jun 2004, 23:46

Bloody disgrace

Post by turkey » 16 Jun 2004, 03:30

:arrow: PDF Trouble: If it is QuarkXPress 6.1, download the patch from the following link:

http://www.quark.com/service/desktop/do ... sp?idx=544

Tell me if it works and I will show you the way to get the most out of this latest QuarkXPress version :lol:

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

Bloody disgrace

Post by Jim Oblak » 16 Jun 2004, 07:47

John, I was only commenting on the uselessness of waving the carrot when no one is certain what functions will appear in a new release. The users in this forum are worried about the options available to them today.

I suppose this kind of speculation is well suited for a user forum.

stevewlondon
Posts: 4
Joined: 30 Jun 2004, 03:41

Bloody disgrace

Post by stevewlondon » 30 Jun 2004, 04:35

We moved from Quark 4.1 to 6.1 and have been really let down by Quark. The price of the package is extortionate, the customer service is absolutely vile, the package crashes regularly when copying tables, it is impossible to copy a layout from one project to another, we had incredible problems loading the software, including mutiple conflicts with other software products - the list just goes on and on.

Basically, Quark has gotten too big for itself and is losing us as customers. We spent nearly 20,000 getting the new Quark installed on our computers, only to be told that we would have to pay extra for technical support. The software just isn't worth it. It has cost us productivity and at least one client. We are preparing to sue and switch everything to In-Design.

Do not buy Quark until they change their customer service policy and start treating customers with a bit more respect. Besides that, In-Design is a much better package.

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

Bloody disgrace

Post by Jim Oblak » 30 Jun 2004, 12:05

Steve, meet the choir.

PC Graphics Report
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Jun 2004, 19:46

Bloody disgrace

Post by PC Graphics Report » 30 Jun 2004, 12:19

Even though we are all in the choir to some extent, we still hang out here making sure that we stay connected with Quark.
Having been involved since 1.0 and having trained hundreds of XPress users, I am still use the application, care very much for the many friends I have made through it, and wish the company all the best.
It would be an awful shame if Adobe were to take over all of the publishing market and not have to worry about Quark.
John

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

Bloody disgrace

Post by longtimedesigner » 30 Jun 2004, 16:55

Why would it be an awful shame if Adobe took over the publishing market?

If they treat their customers better, offer a better product at a better price, and the product is reliable, why would that be a shame? I know I'd be happy using the #1 page layout application while paying a fair price, getting a realiable product and be treated with respect by the company I support through product purchases.

Is it a shame that they have a near monopoly on PhotoShop? PhotoShop is a great product with regulary, reasonably priced upgrades which tend to improve workflow dramatically.

Quark had a near monopoly on page layout. They were arrogant. They charged exhorbitant fees for minimal upgrades. Their customer service was known to be among the worst in the industry. Their overall disdain for their customers is legendary.

How many times, over the years have we heard Quark representatives apologize for the way customers were treated, only to continue watching Quark treat us with contempt?

Quark sat on top of the heap, treating its own customers poorly for an inordinately long time. It's their just desserts to be getting a run for their money after all this time.

PC Graphics Report
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Jun 2004, 19:46

Bloody disgrace

Post by PC Graphics Report » 30 Jun 2004, 17:26

I guess I don't like to have anyone sitting on a market without some competition to keep them honest. This is what made Quark so arrogant and disdainful of their users. They knew that we had nowhere else to go, and one way or anther they took advantage of the situation. Competition keeps features relevant, upgrades frequent and service proactive. Maybe the new Quark, with less arrogant leadership, and more responsive support (we did get the forums back!), will prove to be much more responsive and caring.
Let us hope we are heading back towards the ethos of Tim Gill and the exciting times of XPress. I remember being so grateful for tracking and kerning after years of PageMaker.
Who knows what Photoshop would be like if there was decent competition? Certainly if it was to pick up a 20 of the best items from Corel Photo-Paint it would be a much better application. I do not advocate the use of Photo-Paint, but they have much improved the user experience in ways that would make Photoshop a better application. But Photo-Paint is not competition for all sorts of reasons.

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

Bloody disgrace

Post by longtimedesigner » 30 Jun 2004, 18:15

PC G R,

Good points. I was mostly looking at it if one company or the other had the monopoly, I know which company would handle it better.

It's not easy to say what would have happened with PhotoShop had there been any real competition. I know all along the way, several companies have tried. You don't hear about them anymore! I can't even remember some of their names or the names of their products. It stillgoes to show if there were a monopoly, who could handle the power better.

I'm still leary about Quark's corporate structure. Does it really take Ebrahimi out of the picture or is he still behind the wheel? Over the years, Quark has tried to put a better face a few times. However, they never succeeded. Ebrahimi would usually make unfriendly decisions and tick people off. Personally, I'm skeptical. You know the old saying - do me once, shame on you...

Post Reply

Return to “Sofa Threads”