Oh? Buy Fonts? What is that? But then if we can find a font in our archives, we just request the client give it to us. Then it is ours FOREVER ahahhahh. In OSX, we just use the user font folder and keep that in the "Dock". Copy fonts being used to open font folder. Do job. Move fonts to desk top. copy in new fonts for another job. At then of day delete all fonts. Yes delete that .lst thing too. did that. Sometimes fonts still don't load right so you need the "font cashe cleaner". It does just that and you restart. Some fonts stick like glue in the cashe even though you restarted. Not many fonts, but some do. Leaning curve? No. Getting a hires image in the same possition as the FPO image take for ev er. No so in Q. There is just no history with InDesign to discuss saving back and forth. Everyone has abandonded the older versions of InDesign. You just don't have the same issues with small printers using q4 on OS9 and so on. Anyway we just got the new CS collection of aps. I'll be trying them all out. The Warp in Photoshop is ammazing. We needed it already.

I got all buggered up going over to OSX - lost all my multiple master fonts and had to buy tons of new ones... not happy. But once I cleared up that, and consolidated all of them into a manageable file structure I could make Suitcase work with, I was just fine... mostly. :D

Did you delete all the adobefnt.lst? That buggers up fonts bad if you don't clear those out.

yumm.. nitpicky typography and hanging puctuation... heavenly.

Peter, you just made my point. Indesign CS is rock solid. And all that saving back and forth and if, then or else crap is a flaw. And as far as people using Quark to get stuff done faster, that is just a learning curve. I was forced to use Indesign CS for a 600 page book and now I can crank it out faster than Quark since my machine doesn't crash all the freaking time.

LOL. Yes that is also why Apple better keep OS9 shell working well. BBDO and others give us Q4 files. I work them in Q5 and make sure to keep them saved as Q4. Q sure was rude not to give a discount to such a large purchase. The Q7 will be able to print fonts that extend out of the box and WITH drop shadows. There are font issues some times with different Quarks. We have one job that uses OS9 fonts that do not work well in Q6. Strange I know. We have to save back to 4 and re center type in box. This is the only occurance. Most problems are with OT fonts in Q5. One thing to avoid is...saving a Q6 to Q5 then opening in Q6 again. Not good. Oh and back to the OS9 shell. Many have had problems in the last week with OS9, Suitace and Q5 and others. The solution is to take out some fonts in the OS9 system font folder. I took out ones that I didn't need in there and it cleared up the problem. This was after many hours of repairs. None of the repairs worked. Not even making a new user.

Overheard when I was freelancing at BBDO the other day. "You're using Quark?" "Yeah I need to get this out as fast as possible." I find InDesign to be clunky, but I do like some of its features over Quark, such as nitpicky typography things like hanging punctuation that likely only Will Strain appreciates. I use Quark because I've been using it since 1991. This is what InDesign should have done to beat Quark: 1) They should have been 5 times better. Not 10% better. The differences with InDesign were not enough of a reason to switch. Like Ed said, agencies largelyu made the move over price. When I was at Ammirati they didn't have enough Quark licenses to go around and were in negotiations to buy a few hundred. Quark wouldn't give the slightest discount for buying in bulk. So when InDesign came out I'm sure many agencies were miffed by this experience and switched. 2) If you can't be five times better, at least be compatable. In order to bring a Quark 6 file to Indesign, you need to save it as a Quark 5 file. Then you need to open it in Quark 5, save it as a Quark 4 file and finally open it in InDesign and hope that it still works. Agencies have 10 year archives of Quark files they need to open. Why have to recreate that ad that runs every year for Labor Day when you can just modify the Quark? It creates this sleeping with your ex scenario. I've found myself using InDesign for a stretch, only to have a client bring an old Quark ad back to life and then I'm back in Quark.

Will Strain doesn't hate the Average Man -- he simply hates Corporate Software Men. If you're a Corporate Shaving-Razor-Technology Guy, he won't necessarily hate you, unless your shaving razors suck.

My problem with quark is that the upcoming quark 7 is what should have been version 6 or even 5... they waited too long to implement so many features and compatibilities. And if I still can't place a native Illustrator file so I can update it live without having to save down to place, I'm gonna scream.

I've switched to InDesign totally except where I am forced by a client to use quark. Even having learned on it years ago - its integration with everything else I use sucks ass. Combine that with their refusal for so many years to even have an upgrade path (excuse me, I have to buy the full thing again?!) and customer service right up there with the soup nazi for friendliness...I can't be bought back without some serious pressure.

Helios is ok as well, it's the main competitor with fullpress, but the cost for either system can get up there, but in a large environment where you are dealing with a lot of hires with a lot of users it's well worth the investment. OPI works best in a place that deals with the hires (like either inhouse or at the color house). You can even use the OPI with the color copiers... leave the files hires on server, never deal with having to make a low res file, setup a print que for the canon or xerox and the server automatically does the res-ing down when you go to print... Drastically reducing the time to print out files.

I have been using Enfocus' Instant PDF. I had a publication require a certified pdf and it appears they developed the file certification and the software. They have a whole workflow suite which require certified pdfs. It's great software. As far as suppling native art, I have had problems running spot colors as pdfs so I supply the native Indesign files. Maybe I am just a dummy, but I have had hell getting pdfs to sep correctly. As far as OPI, I do so much retouching it wouldn't buy me much. I have a photoshop script to bang out a lowres and leave the OPI stuff to the printer or color house. If I had the volume, I might look into it. At DDB we looked into Helios Image Server, but they shit a brick when the saw the costs.

Peter - what are you using to create your PDF's? Distiller? The printers I work with only ask for PDF's now - I suppose they're just running separations on them but I haven't had any sort of problems with submitting them PDF's that I've created from Quark. I know some of the printers I've worked with in the past have had issues with how the PDF's were set up, but albeit, I don't think Quark had export to PDF option at the time. My first internship/job was during the switch to OSX. Like Mark said, that caused a lot of problems. Quark was our layout program so we never were able to use OSX... the pisser was that they charged for the ability to use their software on the current operating system. I understand updates are how these companies make their money, but they pissed soooo many people off during that switch that they should have been giving those upgrade disks out for free. There were no real differences between the old version and new one to make a viable excuse to charge people the price of an upgrade. Anyways, argue with me all you want, but that's my stance. Back to Peter, I haven't really worked at an agency, but the design houses that I've interned at have used programs like Freehand (but yeah, Pagemaker is hell on disk). I had to learn Freehand for about 6 months at one internship and I came to like it just as much as Illustrator. It's a preference thing, I suppose. There will always be people who like the competitor's product more.

How many people are using Xinet Fullpress for OPI and Dalim Twist on the PDF end? Anyone using Mediabeacon or Xinet Webnative?

Quark burned a lot of people. I started using Pagemaker 3, then Quark 2.1 so I have some history. They turned their backs on their base users and only focused on their Enterprise solutions. And all that web, xml crap that nobody cares about. Then, charging $900 for a user license. For a few hundred more I can get the entire creative suite. Bah! I notice they are running ads in adweek because they are scared. The prepress aspect in does cause trouble, all that transparency stuff in indesign buggering up the rips, but Quark will have the same issues and Indesign will have an new release by then.

6.5 and Indesign CS is what we use now. I am talking about the furure Quark 7 which will use Transparency, Opacity, (color based, not Object based) soft drop shadows that stay with object, and a vast up grade in font useage to mention a few. On PDFs. I don't recomend saving directly to PDF from any Program. But, I am in the business of rebuilding files for ad agencies for print. We are in business to free up agencies to be as creative as they like without worrying HOW to build and prepare files. Yes, many agencies went to InDesign. Yes it is better for creating fany looks directly in the ap you are pritning from, but, most agencies do NOT get that fancies with their ads with respect to transparencies and vignettes. The ones that do, use InDesign well. Many still use Quark 4 or 5 in the OS9 shell. We use all Quarks and InDesign and of course Illustrator and Photoshop. I have not seen Freehand in years nor Pagemaker. There are type reflow issues in changing to new or older versions of some aps. But that is for another day. As far as what is better... I say use the correct ap for the correct job. You need both for now.

1) I'm a Quark user. That's what I was taught on, that's what I know. I switch over to InDesign sometimes and find it to be backwards, obviously since all of my knowledge is based on Quark. I'm happy with my shortcuts, my layout... but from what I understand, InDesign seems to work a lot better with the other Adobe family products. Quark has gotten their act together since Quark 4, though, and there doesn't seem to be much of a difference anymore. I'm glad I can go direct to PDF on Quark now, definitely. I haven't read anything on 7, seeing as I won't probably upgrade unless there is a major improvement. Let me know if there are any benefits. 2) I don't see Adobe's and Macromedia's merger changing a whole lot. I think in the further future we may see a lot more integration between soem of their products, but do you think they're going to stop making Freehand now because there's already an Illustrator? Is Dreamweaver going to go or GoLive? I think the industry has too many people set in their ways to merge too much. But I think you're right, having things like Flash integrate better with adobe products will be very helpful.

Some agencies that went to indesign made the decision based on the cost issue and quark's OS X upgrade delay. But I have heard some of those same agencies that went to indesign have switched back to quark with the recent upgrade (6 and 6.5) because of the lower quark upgrade cost. In the studio environment in many ways it doesn't matter anymore, since we are producing pdf's for output to the publications in the end. I still like quark, but have used indesign for a while as well. The main reason to stick with one over the other is if you need to give your files to a client (common now-a-days) and they have one perticular program that they use, since the agency isin't going to pay for the expense of building the same file in two programs. I grew up with quark and illustrator, kind of liked freehand for a while (after the version where you didn't have to save both the native and an non-editable eps version). Although it will be interesting to see what adobe does with flash... I guess it will become part of CS as well.

Didn't someone here recently post a link to an InDesign vs. Quark site? The site has all sorts of useful info, plus the usual rants. A lot of agencies won't use both because of the licensing expense.

Hey Peter, thought it was Quark 6.5? I'm wondering why Adobe doesn't just buy them and make it less buggy.