For those that want a high end desktop publishing, as opposed to word processing, app....you might want to consider Quarkxpress 2016 (version 12). The upgrade price for 2015 is $179 and from older versions is $349. Those upgrade prices beat the full retail price of $849. So go on eBay and purchase a legal copy of an older version....that has NOT been registered. Register the old copy and then you can order the upgrade package via download from Quark. No need to install the older version.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Quarkxpress 2016 DTP app
- Thread starter MCAsan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The MacWorld review of QXP was glowing. They said that it imported other formats flawlessly. I moved to InDesign almost 12 years ago and haven't used Quark since, but their new software is encouraging. I won't be switching in the near future, but am open to the possibility down the road.
Just cross your fingers that an outside shop doesn't need to do alts on the project. Almost no one in the professional world uses Quark anymore.
bent christian,
I am going to have to disagree with you. I work with many professional printers and design agencies and all of them have Quark on hand. I think you would be surprised at how many people still use Quark. Sure it is down from its peak in the mid to late 90's but there are still lots of users. It is comparable in features to Indesign and it is every bit as powerful. Quark's style and thinking are a little different from Adobe's and some people like Quark's way better (I use both and there are positives and negatives with each so it comes down to personal preference). I think that it has and will continue to attract users who would like an alternative to Indesign and especially people and companies that don't want to be tied to a subscription model like Adobe forces on people. Quark's customer service and attitude towards its customers was famous for how awful it was back in the 1990's and early 2000's but it has changed quite a bit in the past 10 years.
Mecha
I am going to have to disagree with you. I work with many professional printers and design agencies and all of them have Quark on hand. I think you would be surprised at how many people still use Quark. Sure it is down from its peak in the mid to late 90's but there are still lots of users. It is comparable in features to Indesign and it is every bit as powerful. Quark's style and thinking are a little different from Adobe's and some people like Quark's way better (I use both and there are positives and negatives with each so it comes down to personal preference). I think that it has and will continue to attract users who would like an alternative to Indesign and especially people and companies that don't want to be tied to a subscription model like Adobe forces on people. Quark's customer service and attitude towards its customers was famous for how awful it was back in the 1990's and early 2000's but it has changed quite a bit in the past 10 years.
Mecha
Yeah, sure. Any or agency shop is going to have a version laying around. We do, too. It's ten years old, though and basically useless. Quark has no mechanism to allow files saved with older versions to be usable (like InDesign IDML). In 2014, they released a converter compatible with Quark 10. I don't think that helps very many, as most of us have long since moved on to more professional software and are at least two versions behind that. The company is still in business, so yes, some people are still using/buying Quark. I haven't seen any professional use this software in at probably eight to ten years. The people who do are always home users and the version is quite old. It is always a pain in the a** to figure out how to make it work across versions. Sometimes we have to request EPS files and deal with the whole thing in Illustrator. Quark is always a nightmare for us.
Quark has an opportunity to get back in considering the backlash over Adobe's subscription service. They have a lot to catch up on, though.
Which "backlash" is this? Aside from a lot of griping I hear on this site, Adobe's revenue and use statistics are better than ever.
I was one of those users burned by Quark in the 90s. If the newspaper industry had not invested so heavily in custom Quark extensions at that time the company would be long bankrupt. A few years ago they tried giving Quark 10 away for free, to little success. A new version of Quark is not going to set the world afire, demand for print-based publishing tools is pretty soft these days...
lucidmedia,
So because Adobe's revenue and use statistics are better than ever, that is confirmation that everyone is happy? I don't think so. I would say it is more a matter of a lack of options that has left so many people with no other choice but to take whatever crap Adobe is pushing. There are many, many people who are extremely unhappy with Adobe forcing everyone to use a subscription model. Adobe has never had much in the way of competition and when they bought Macromedia, it pretty much gave them free rein to do whatever they want. What are you going to do if you don't like it? Nothing. I hate Adobe's subscription policy. Many people will say it is cheaper but it isn't cheaper for everyone. I can see how some big companies might like it but for me, no thanks.
What really hurt Quark was when Adobe started selling their software in a suite. You have to have Photoshop and Illustrator even if you use Quark. If you bought Photoshop and Illustrator in a suite (back in the day) then you got Indesign too, so why use Quark? If Quark had been smart they would have at least tried to get their own vector and photo app going but they didn't. Corel at one time seemed like they might be up to the challenge but then something happened and they dropped the ball (powerful software no doubt but one of the worst interfaces I've ever seen and no Mac version).
Things are changing though. Competition for Adobe is coming. A company called Affinity's first two products, Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo are great. Sure they aren't quite up to Illustrator and Photoshop just yet but the developers are developing them an incredible pace. Plus they are a relative bargain, especially considering how powerful they are. In many areas they are on par with Illustrator and Photoshop and somethings are even better. The software is rather new and so it has a few missing things here and there but the developers are adding new things all the time and I would guess that they will catch up to Illustrator and Photoshop within a year or two. The developers also listen to customer requests and they interact with users on their forums. This year Affinity is going to start beta testing their own layout app and I think that this will give many people the chance to get the Adobe monkey off their back. I think that if a few other companies could offer some choices to Adobe's products, then many people would jump ship.
Mecha
So because Adobe's revenue and use statistics are better than ever, that is confirmation that everyone is happy? I don't think so. I would say it is more a matter of a lack of options that has left so many people with no other choice but to take whatever crap Adobe is pushing. There are many, many people who are extremely unhappy with Adobe forcing everyone to use a subscription model. Adobe has never had much in the way of competition and when they bought Macromedia, it pretty much gave them free rein to do whatever they want. What are you going to do if you don't like it? Nothing. I hate Adobe's subscription policy. Many people will say it is cheaper but it isn't cheaper for everyone. I can see how some big companies might like it but for me, no thanks.
What really hurt Quark was when Adobe started selling their software in a suite. You have to have Photoshop and Illustrator even if you use Quark. If you bought Photoshop and Illustrator in a suite (back in the day) then you got Indesign too, so why use Quark? If Quark had been smart they would have at least tried to get their own vector and photo app going but they didn't. Corel at one time seemed like they might be up to the challenge but then something happened and they dropped the ball (powerful software no doubt but one of the worst interfaces I've ever seen and no Mac version).
Things are changing though. Competition for Adobe is coming. A company called Affinity's first two products, Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo are great. Sure they aren't quite up to Illustrator and Photoshop just yet but the developers are developing them an incredible pace. Plus they are a relative bargain, especially considering how powerful they are. In many areas they are on par with Illustrator and Photoshop and somethings are even better. The software is rather new and so it has a few missing things here and there but the developers are adding new things all the time and I would guess that they will catch up to Illustrator and Photoshop within a year or two. The developers also listen to customer requests and they interact with users on their forums. This year Affinity is going to start beta testing their own layout app and I think that this will give many people the chance to get the Adobe monkey off their back. I think that if a few other companies could offer some choices to Adobe's products, then many people would jump ship.
Mecha
This has nothing to do with happiness. Trying to make everyone happy is folly. I am sure Adobe does a tremendous amount of research around how much to charge for their service. Adobe's research shows that the majority of users of Creative Cloud feel positive about it and have no plans to leave. I have software suites in my studio that cost me tens of thousands of dollars a year to keep licenced and supported. In that context, Adobe is a bargain for what it offers.
In my previous comment I was simply stating that I have yet to see a measurable "backlash" outside of the same talking points around "software ownership" and "it costs more". The fact that other options have not materialized more quickly is testament that the money to be made in this market is quite thin. Bohemian Coding (sketch) and Serif ltd. (Affinity Designer) are small companies, who are now facing the (expensive) challenge of moving their products cross platform. Hopefully they will survive. Bohemian recently had to make unpopular changes in its licencing to remain profitable - and this is for a software offering that does not overlap with an existing Adobe product!
The creative services industry is a niche market, and there is only so much money to be made from it. Apple stepped away from most of its high-end creative tools a few years ago. Adobe has its sights set on a broader audiences as well (business & science).
I am going to respectfully disagree with you here. What killed Quark is that they ran Quark 3 and Quark 4 on a 6-7 year upgrade cycle. I was not drawn away from Quark by convenience, but innovation. At the time InDesign looked like a shiny new toy, with some huge improvements around workflow (PDF creation for example).
I have not used Adobe as my primary design tools in a few years. I moved to Sketch. I would be happy to have more competition, but I don't think its going to happen.
As stated above, I don't think that there is the opportunity in this product space that everyone thinks there is. Targeting users whingeing about Adobe costing too much means you already have a ceiling of how much money you can charge.
Adobe must be out-innovated, not undercut. Thats going to cost money, not be software on a budget.
I don't want to sound like an Adobe apologist. I have significant criticisms with the company, but those criticisms don't really extend to their business model. Adobe is rooted in the past, and still clings to a print-centric mindset. Adobe is not showing leadership around the real issues that are facing working designers today - particularly around Web and UX workflow. It is for those reasons I think they will eventually lose market share when a more innovative company comes along... not because of they change $50 a month..
In my experience, printing companies don't need new updates every few months which cause headaches with drivers and other software. I've heard so many stories about uninstalling and reinstalling Adobe's software I'd be hesitant to try it, even if it didn't mean having to replace some machines I run.
Something less expensive like Affinity's products, if stable, I believe will catch on. Not everybody needs new bells and whistles, especially if they are added just so Adobe can boast that they have them.
Something less expensive like Affinity's products, if stable, I believe will catch on. Not everybody needs new bells and whistles, especially if they are added just so Adobe can boast that they have them.
I've just recently purchased iStudio and am quite excited about its potential. And for just over twenty pounds for three copies it's excellent value. Reminds me of Pagemaker (and its little brother Home Publisher). Happy days.
lucidmedia,
Thanks for your for your response. I can always appreciate a well reasoned argument, even if I don't completely agree. You do make some very good points and I can completely agree with you on some of them but I see things differently in some areas. I do think that you are right in the fact that whoever wants to knock Adobe off of the top spot in the graphics world will have to do with by out innovating them, and not by price alone. I probably wasn't clear in my post but I don't think that the price of the subscription is the reason that Quark has a chance to gain some customers. I think that the terms of using a subscription model are what has put so many people off of using Adobe. Price is an issue for some, but like you said, it will take more than just price to win people over. If a company can offer a similar program with similar or better features without the subscription crap, I think that tons of people would jump ship. Sure the market for layout software is probably shrinking, but still there is a lot of money to be made in the area. I think that if Quark plays its cards right, it could do alright.
I hope that more smaller, and more agile companies than Adobe can rise to the challenge. I am incredibly impressed with Affinity's offerings so far and I hope that other companies as well continue to release great software. I've heard good thing about Sketch but I personally haven't used it because I'm not a UI designer. I think that companies like Adobe (or Microsoft, etc) get lazy when there is too little competition so I hope for more of it.
Mecha
[doublepost=1467901391][/doublepost]wordsworth,
Seriously, Pagemaker? Pagemaker (or Ragemaker as it was better known as) was quite possibly the worst layout program ever created. To say that iStudio reminds you of Pagemaker is an insult. If any program was "like it" I would keep as far away from it as I could. There is a reason that Adobe quit making it. In all honesty I have no idea what iStudio is like. It might be a great program but I hope for their sake that it isn't like Pagemaker. There is only one program that has earned more hatred from pre-press people than Pagemaker and that is Microsoft Publisher.
Mecha
I think that just like the roman emperors who had a slave whisper in their ear during triumphs through Rome the words 'Remember you are mortal' the bosses at Adobe and other big software companies should get an intern to whisper 'Remember Quark' every so often... It was classic case of how to loose a sure fire monopoly.
What killed it, in my opinion, wasn't just the utter arrogance of its owners but their catastrophic refusal to support OSX and the attempt to get us to all switch to PCs (2002?) which would make their lives easier. Then Quark 5 was a complete dog... (didn't you have to run it in System 9 emulation) and that came on the back of years of poor customer service, rip off pricing (remember the laptop licensing surcharge?) and general neglect.
I would actually like to see it come back but they've got a mountain to climb - day to day Adobe seems to be working for me and the people I know.
What killed it, in my opinion, wasn't just the utter arrogance of its owners but their catastrophic refusal to support OSX and the attempt to get us to all switch to PCs (2002?) which would make their lives easier. Then Quark 5 was a complete dog... (didn't you have to run it in System 9 emulation) and that came on the back of years of poor customer service, rip off pricing (remember the laptop licensing surcharge?) and general neglect.
I would actually like to see it come back but they've got a mountain to climb - day to day Adobe seems to be working for me and the people I know.
jeremy h,
I like your idea about the whisper "Remember Quark". Adobe should be careful, it seems that as of late Adobe is too big for their boots (or too big for their breeches). You are right, Quark's CEO at the time, Fred Ebrahimi, was such an idiot. He is a textbook example of "what not to do as a CEO". He made so many bad mistakes. It is amazing that someone like him could become CEO. The good thing is, they got rid of him along time ago and it seems that the company has changed its ways (because if they haven't, then they are destined to fail). While they have made plenty of bad choices over the years, I still remember Quark 3 and 3.3 very fondly. Especially when comparing it to Pagemaker. Quark 4 was decent, not great but still miles ahead of Pagemaker but after that, things did go down hill pretty quickly.
Mecha
PS. Don't forget that they also used to charge more for "international versions".
I like your idea about the whisper "Remember Quark". Adobe should be careful, it seems that as of late Adobe is too big for their boots (or too big for their breeches). You are right, Quark's CEO at the time, Fred Ebrahimi, was such an idiot. He is a textbook example of "what not to do as a CEO". He made so many bad mistakes. It is amazing that someone like him could become CEO. The good thing is, they got rid of him along time ago and it seems that the company has changed its ways (because if they haven't, then they are destined to fail). While they have made plenty of bad choices over the years, I still remember Quark 3 and 3.3 very fondly. Especially when comparing it to Pagemaker. Quark 4 was decent, not great but still miles ahead of Pagemaker but after that, things did go down hill pretty quickly.
Mecha
PS. Don't forget that they also used to charge more for "international versions".
That is, why you use the IDML format.
Since Adobe introduced it in Indesign CS4, it works flawlessly and became de-facto industry standard exhange format for DTP apps.
For Quark you have Xtensions like the IDML importer/exporter from Badia.
And then there is the german DTP app Viva Designer, that can open and save IDML format etc.
Also the comming Affinity Publisher will have the option, to open and save in this format.
Well, I don't use Quark anymore since ... hmm ... InDesign 1.5
So, no additional software for me
But yeah, I agree with you.
I worked at a printing service bureau in the '90s and almost every file I printed to films was Quark. We dreaded seeing a file in anything else because it was always a headache and signaled the creator wasn't a professional and probably did other dumb things like not include their fonts or a broken imported photo in RGB. How the mighty have fallen!
It's 2016, things have moved on. I only switched to InDesign 3 years ago because we had a huge back catalogue of legacy Quark files. Best thing I ever did and should have done it sooner. For a designer using PSD files placed in ID and a pdf workflow it blows Quark out of the water. The last version of Quark I used (9) still didn't play nicely with PSD files so that was the point when I gave up with it. I'm sure the latest version is much better, but it's too late. Why would anyone paying for Creative Cloud sub waste money also paying for Quark?? I know a lot of people in the design and print industry and no one, i mean no one uses Quark - it's dead to them.
And for the guy that mentioned Pagemaker - long may that software or anything remotely like it rot in hell. Not times we want to go back to. Adobe has it faults but overall CC works well for me. Whether it's right or wrong most professionals will stick with Adobe and not bother learning or trying cheaper alternatives. Until a competitor comes up with a like for like product that features massive timesaving features such as 'smart objects' and a 'shared library' then I wouldn't be interested.
And for the guy that mentioned Pagemaker - long may that software or anything remotely like it rot in hell. Not times we want to go back to. Adobe has it faults but overall CC works well for me. Whether it's right or wrong most professionals will stick with Adobe and not bother learning or trying cheaper alternatives. Until a competitor comes up with a like for like product that features massive timesaving features such as 'smart objects' and a 'shared library' then I wouldn't be interested.
What? No love for Pagemaker here? Huh. It was partly thanks to Aldus and its software that Apple became a genuine contender and – rollercoaster ride though it has sometimes been these past decades – the hugely successful company it is today. Similarly, Pagemaker was a not insignificant factor in the massive print-industry-changing move from hot metal to DTP. And the consequent proliferation of independent publishers.
While I may not have been so deep down at the design coalface as some of the other posters on this thread, my own experience with Pagemaker (Aldus, not the later Adobe incarnation) helped shape my journey through publishing, starting out in tandem with that delightful little Macintosh SE. (Nowadays people moan about the MacBook Air screen! How spoilt we are.)
Like I said in my previous post, happy days. From what I've read so far, others' experiences are clearly different and, not unreasonably, all their own. They have my sympathy.
While I may not have been so deep down at the design coalface as some of the other posters on this thread, my own experience with Pagemaker (Aldus, not the later Adobe incarnation) helped shape my journey through publishing, starting out in tandem with that delightful little Macintosh SE. (Nowadays people moan about the MacBook Air screen! How spoilt we are.)
Like I said in my previous post, happy days. From what I've read so far, others' experiences are clearly different and, not unreasonably, all their own. They have my sympathy.
wordsworth,
I agree with you, Pagemaker played a huge role in the move to DTP. In the beginning Pagemaker was revolutionary and I'm sure from a designers perspective at the time it was powerful. I'm assuming that you are talking about the late 1980's if you had an SE. Back then Pagemaker wasn't bad but it couldn't keep up with the fast past of technology. As DTP technology advanced, Pagemaker didn't. Pagemaker's problems came when you sent it to a printer or a pre-press shop. Pagemaker was despised by anyone who had to try to output a Pagemaker file to film or to Plate. Getting a Pagemaker file through a RIP was a chore and often times an impossibility. One reason that Quark Xpress did so well in the early to mid-1990's was the fact that it was much easier to get a file from Quark Xpress through a RIP than Pagemaker. That is why it is often called "Ragemaker". So Pagemaker does deserve some credit for helping to move design and printing to the desktop but it has fairly earned its nickname of Ragemaker.
Mecha
I agree with you, Pagemaker played a huge role in the move to DTP. In the beginning Pagemaker was revolutionary and I'm sure from a designers perspective at the time it was powerful. I'm assuming that you are talking about the late 1980's if you had an SE. Back then Pagemaker wasn't bad but it couldn't keep up with the fast past of technology. As DTP technology advanced, Pagemaker didn't. Pagemaker's problems came when you sent it to a printer or a pre-press shop. Pagemaker was despised by anyone who had to try to output a Pagemaker file to film or to Plate. Getting a Pagemaker file through a RIP was a chore and often times an impossibility. One reason that Quark Xpress did so well in the early to mid-1990's was the fact that it was much easier to get a file from Quark Xpress through a RIP than Pagemaker. That is why it is often called "Ragemaker". So Pagemaker does deserve some credit for helping to move design and printing to the desktop but it has fairly earned its nickname of Ragemaker.
Mecha