On Monday 03 April 2006 17:34, pixelnate wrote: > Craig Bradney wrote: > >> may change in the future. Remember, Quark wasn't really accepted by the > >> industry until v3.3, and Indesign was a steaming pile of poo for v1 and > >> v2. I cannot wait to see Scribus v3! > > > > Which is a load of crap.. ID had already pretty much taken hold of the > > market over Quark with 2. > > That is simply not the case. InDesign still does not have more > marketshare than Quark, and it didn't really take hold until it was > bundled in the CS suite. V1&2 were both originally intended for Mac OS9, > and it wasn't until Adobe shipped CS which included an OSX-only version > of InDesign that it was really embraced. There were *many* bugs in the > first two versions that kept people at bay. And FWIW, many designers > here is Texas are still loyal to Quark. Personally, I like Indesign > because it previews better than Quark does, but v7 is supposed to be > pretty slick. > > ~Nate
I'd rather say Quark has a larger installed-base as opposed to InDesign and that people maybe have old in-house plugins. To me it is clear that Quark is still floating on its inertia. It's like an old train that takes a lot of time to be stopped. InDesign is a far more superior product to me. Quark 7 trial has done nothing to impress me, and the recent problems with their image reflects a company that is struggling to catch up with the recent technologies.
