Quark vs Pagemaker

Quark vs Pagemaker

Post by C Jen » Sun, 11 Dec 1994 07:05:02



First I need to say that my intent in asking these questions is not to
start another flame war. Is there a clear favorite between Quark and
Pagemaker within the printing industry? What about Adobe Pagemaker -- will
Adobe change Pagemaker to give it an advantage? What does the future
behold?
 
 
 

Quark vs Pagemaker

Post by Geoffr » Mon, 12 Dec 1994 07:06:19




> First I need to say that my intent in asking these questions is not to
> start another flame war. Is there a clear favorite between Quark and
> Pagemaker within the printing industry? What about Adobe Pagemaker -- will
> Adobe change Pagemaker to give it an advantage? What does the future
> behold?

Well, according to my various sources (comp.publish.prepress; graphics,
quark, photoshop and Illustrator mailing lists) it seems that designers
are split, probably preferring what they are used to. Technically, Quark
has a few more features and some simpler implementations, and its plug-in
Xtension system means you can customize the program extensively. But for
designing pages, they both are fine.
However, it would seem that prepress and service bureaux prefer Quark
almost unanimously, claiming that Pagemaker("page breaker") causes
problems when RIPping.
As to the future, if Adobe does what they normally do, then Pagemaker will
be rewritten to work seamlessly with all the other programs from the
people who brought you Postscript, and Quark's *will undoubtedly be
kicked. How hard and how far is yet to be seen.
Incidently, this might be good for Quark users too, forcing Quark to
behave themselves and act like normal people rather than the arrogant
moonopolists that some claim them to be.

Regards
Geoffrey Thomas
NYC

--
"Lacroix sweetie, Lacroix"

 
 
 

Quark vs Pagemaker

Post by Charles Wiltg » Mon, 12 Dec 1994 06:08:03




> Is there a clear favorite between Quark and
> Pagemaker within the printing industry?

Both are excellent.  Many people have found that they like one or the
other more for paradigmm, performance or production reasons.  They each
excel at different things, so maybe you can share with us what kind of
documents you're going to be doing.

Quote:> What about Adobe Pagemaker -- will
> Adobe change Pagemaker to give it an advantage? What does the future
> behold?

Obviously, no one can tell what the future holds.  However, having Adobe
behind PageMaker is undoubtedly good for both Aldus customers (PageMaker
will get better) and Quark customers (Quark won't abuse their customers as
much, hopefully).

--
Charles Wiltgen    "Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and

(INTP)              At night, the ice weasels come." - Nietzsche (Groening)
The Apocalypso!     http://www.mcs.net/~cwiltgen

 
 
 

Quark vs Pagemaker

Post by david s. brou » Wed, 14 Dec 1994 07:11:34



< However, it would seem that prepress and service bureaux prefer Quark
< almost unanimously, claiming that Pagemaker("page breaker") causes
< problems when RIPping.

Another myth. I have RIPped hundreds of PM5 pages from simple to
ridiculously complex and all, repeat, all of them obediently RIPped and
produced nice, pretty film that begat nice crisp plates that spawned
serveral hundred thousand pieces.

I think SBs that perpetuate this myth are doing a real disservice, esp.
when they don't know any better and also because this is such an
apocryphal thing. Maybe way back in version 3.2CE with the tacked-on color
support...

----------              

"Oh, my *y bollocks" --Patsy Stone

 
 
 

Quark vs Pagemaker

Post by John Doher » Thu, 15 Dec 1994 03:38:16






>< However, it would seem that prepress and service bureaux prefer Quark
>< almost unanimously, claiming that Pagemaker("page breaker") causes
>< problems when RIPping.

>Another myth. I have RIPped hundreds of PM5 pages from simple to
>ridiculously complex and all, repeat, all of them obediently RIPped and
>produced nice, pretty film that begat nice crisp plates that spawned
>serveral hundred thousand pieces.

>I think SBs that perpetuate this myth are doing a real disservice, esp.
>when they don't know any better and also because this is such an
>apocryphal thing. Maybe way back in version 3.2CE with the tacked-on color
>support...

Between late 1987 and early 1992, I made over 200,000 sheets of film for
book pages done in PageMaker. I can't say we never had any problems, but
not many and never found a page that just flat could not be printed.

Many people working in SBs these days seem to have been only doing it
for few years, so they don't remember when XPress didn't exist, or when
it really sucked, either (up to v3, that is). QXP 3.x is basically the
only app they've ever used, it seems, and it's the only one they can
make work. This reflects more on the operators that the programs.

(BTW, PM3.02CE worked pretty well.)


 
 
 

1. Quark vs Pagemaker

Hello everyone.  I was wondering what you all thought about which is
better QuarkXpress or Pagemaker. I like Quark myself, but have never
Pagermaker.  I like the claim of Adobe that Pagemaker works seamlessly
with Photoshop and Illustrator and Pagemaker is much cheeper than Quark.
But what I am wondering is if Pagemaker Cuts the mustard for professional
design work.  What do you all think?

Thanks
Frank Vollono

2. FS: Maya 1.5 for SGI

3. Quark vs PageMaker

4. animated texture map required

5. pagemaker 6 vs, Quark Express

6. Where to start...

7. Quark vs. Pagemaker

8. A maze / labyrinth solving algorithm?

9. Question:Pagemaker vs. Quark Xpress

10. PageMaker vs. Quark Poll

11. Debating purchase of PageMaker vs. Quark

12. Quark Xpress vs PageMaker

13. Loaded Question...Pagemaker V.S. Quark?