You've got to admire them. I year late they get an OS X version of their
program out the door. 2 weeks later the reports start. People can't open
documents created in v4. And you get one free support call for your £100.

Anyone whose waited for Quark 6 to move to X; forget it. Buy InDesign and go
on holiday somewhere nice with the change..... By 2004 they might have Quark
6 a useable design tool....

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> You've got to admire them. I year late they get an OS X version of their
> program out the door. 2 weeks later the reports start. People can't open
> documents created in v4. And you get one free support call for your £100.
>
> Anyone whose waited for Quark 6 to move to X; forget it. Buy InDesign and go
> on holiday somewhere nice with the change..... By 2004 they might have Quark
> 6 a useable design tool....

Isn't it traditional for a quark .0 release to be a complete pile of
unusable shit. I seem to remember 4.0 being useless.

Quark are a company that have it made - they produce substandard
products expensively and late and know that most of their users will
accept it, even though there is viable opposition.


--
Woody

Woody wrote:
> Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>You've got to admire them. I year late they get an OS X version of their
>>program out the door. 2 weeks later the reports start. People can't open
>>documents created in v4. And you get one free support call for your £100.
>>
>>Anyone whose waited for Quark 6 to move to X; forget it. Buy InDesign and go
>>on holiday somewhere nice with the change..... By 2004 they might have Quark
>>6 a useable design tool....
>
> Isn't it traditional for a quark .0 release to be a complete pile of
> unusable shit. I seem to remember 4.0 being useless.
>
> Quark are a company that have it made - they produce substandard
> products expensively and late and know that most of their users will
> accept it, even though there is viable opposition.
>

Interesting that you should say that...

Especially in view of the report last week that The Guardian have
ditched it in favour of InDesign.....

--
David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

On 3/7/03 21:54, in article 1fxjj85.zwqhan5zdw6bN%usenet[at]alienrat.co.uk,
"Woody" <usenet[at]alienrat.co.uk> wrote:

> Isn't it traditional for a quark .0 release to be a complete pile of
> unusable shit. I seem to remember 4.0 being useless.

I still bear the scars. v4 was 4.01,4.02.40.4,4.0.4, then 4.1 That was the
first really reliable release. And that was at least 12months, if not
15months later.

> Quark are a company that have it made - they produce substandard
> products expensively and late and know that most of their users will
> accept it, even though there is viable opposition.

Say InDesign and everyone who uses Quark rolls their eyes.

Force them to use it for a week and they stop rolling. Force them to use it
for a month, they won't go back.

I happen to be very grumpy with Adobe. Golive is slow, Illustrator is slow,
Acrobat 6 appears to be glacial.

But PShop and Indesign are the best X native apps I've seen yet.

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> On 3/7/03 21:54, in article 1fxjj85.zwqhan5zdw6bN%usenet[at]alienrat.co.uk,
> "Woody" <usenet[at]alienrat.co.uk> wrote:

[-]

> > Quark are a company that have it made - they produce substandard
> > products expensively and late and know that most of their users will
> > accept it, even though there is viable opposition.
>
> Say InDesign and everyone who uses Quark rolls their eyes.
>
> Force them to use it for a week and they stop rolling. Force them to use it
> for a month, they won't go back.

I don't know if that is always true :-)
But I'm tired of being held to ransom by Quark, so I've been trying
InDesign, and it works very well indeed. More importantly, almost all
the printers I work with can accept native InDesign documents as well as
PDF. I won't be buying Quark 6 when I move to OS X.

regards
sarah


--
Waist deep, neck deep
We'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damned fools keep yelling to push on

On 4/7/03 7:53, in article 1fxkb0e.nwlzm1e9981uN%me8[at]privacy.net, "sw"
<me8[at]privacy.net> wrote:

>> Force them to use it for a week and they stop rolling. Force them to use it
>> for a month, they won't go back.
> I don't know if that is always true :-)

Hey! I'm enjoying my broad baseless generalizations here. Do spoil it!

> But I'm tired of being held to ransom by Quark, so I've been trying
> InDesign, and it works very well indeed. More importantly, almost all
> the printers I work with can accept native InDesign documents as well as
> PDF. I won't be buying Quark 6 when I move to OS X.

And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
mantra.

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> On 4/7/03 7:53, in article 1fxkb0e.nwlzm1e9981uN%me8[at]privacy.net, "sw"
> <me8[at]privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> Force them to use it for a week and they stop rolling. Force them to use it
> >> for a month, they won't go back.
> > I don't know if that is always true :-)
>
> Hey! I'm enjoying my broad baseless generalizations here. Do spoil it!

I did :-)

>
> > But I'm tired of being held to ransom by Quark, so I've been trying
> > InDesign, and it works very well indeed. More importantly, almost all
> > the printers I work with can accept native InDesign documents as well as
> > PDF. I won't be buying Quark 6 when I move to OS X.
>
> And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
> that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
> mantra.

I've been um, blagging InDesign for about three months now. It's good.
It's different from Quark, but not difficult to learn -- the only hassle
is the archive of 15 years of Quark files.

regards
sarah


--
Waist deep, neck deep
We'll be drowning before too long
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the damned fools keep yelling to push on

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> > I won't be buying Quark 6 when I move to OS X.
>
> And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
> that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
> mantra.

I think intense copy protection with dongles or product activation for
products like Quark is very much a double-edged sword.

I certainly would never have bought it when I started doing freelance
layout work if I hadn't been using a blagged copy to learn on and gain
expertise in. Xpress is only as useful as the operator, and if you limit
the operators by making the software paid-for only, then you limit the
market for your software.

Fewer operators means those that are around will cost you more. Why buy
an expensive piece of software that is going to cost you more in wages?

Quark are doomed, I tell you. Doomed.

I think a great business model for layout software would be free or
shareware software (but GOOD software), and a certificaton system so
good layout operators pay a yearly fee, get regular training and command
high pay rates. The high end companies will pay whatever it takes to get
the high quality output - after all, £50k a year for a good layout
operator is peanuts compared to the cost of placing those ads in glossy
magazines.
The huge userbase will ensure your software remains in the dominant
market position.

--
Pd

On 4/7/03 12:55, in article
1fxkots.1c1czed12z6gegN%pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid, "PeterD"
<pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:

>> And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
>> that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
>> mantra.
> I think intense copy protection with dongles or product activation for
> products like Quark is very much a double-edged sword.

I think the Photoshop, Filemaker,Office X, InDesign network serial checks
are reasonable. They let single people nick the software, but organisations
have to have the software only running on one machine at a time, or buy
additional licences.

It works quite well.

In article <BB2B600D.3FF4B%clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk>, Clive Sweeting
<clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> On 4/7/03 12:55, in article
> 1fxkots.1c1czed12z6gegN%pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid, "PeterD"
> <pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
> >> that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
> >> mantra.
> > I think intense copy protection with dongles or product activation for
> > products like Quark is very much a double-edged sword.
>
> I think the Photoshop, Filemaker,Office X, InDesign network serial checks
> are reasonable. They let single people nick the software, but organisations
> have to have the software only running on one machine at a time, or buy
> additional licences.
>
> It works quite well.
>
>
There is apparently an app that will disable the serial checking in
MSOX. Blocks the TCP ports or something. It probably won't be long
until the others can be similarly circumvented.

Sa

--
I'm a Sarlet, I am

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> On 4/7/03 12:55, in article
> 1fxkots.1c1czed12z6gegN%pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid, "PeterD"
> <pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
> >> that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
> >> mantra.
> > I think intense copy protection with dongles or product activation for
> > products like Quark is very much a double-edged sword.
>
> I think the Photoshop, Filemaker,Office X, InDesign network serial checks
> are reasonable. They let single people nick the software, but organisations
> have to have the software only running on one machine at a time, or buy
> additional licences.
>
Or pull the ethernet plug/disable file sharing :)

> It works quite well.

Not that we used to that that, noo, never.
--
Jon
jon.bradbury[at]btinternet.com

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> On 4/7/03 12:55, in article
> 1fxkots.1c1czed12z6gegN%pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid, "PeterD"
> <pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> And the product activation will stop you from being able to blag it; so
> >> that's one fewer person enforcing the "must use Quark, everyone else does"
> >> mantra.
> > I think intense copy protection with dongles or product activation for
> > products like Quark is very much a double-edged sword.
>
> I think the Photoshop, Filemaker,Office X, InDesign network serial checks
> are reasonable. They let single people nick the software, but organisations
> have to have the software only running on one machine at a time, or buy
> additional licences.
>
> It works quite well.

That makes sense to me. If you have a business that is uses machinery to
produce things, whether that machinery is software or hardware, then it
should be part of your setup and ongoing cost of business.

But I think it's arguable that for individuals to have access to
software to become proficient, benefits the individual, the software
vendor and the end user company.

--
Pd

On 4/7/03 18:11, in article 1fxl3ta.1mmhifc5t0bw4N%me8[at]privacy.net, "sw"
<me8[at]privacy.net> wrote:

>> I've been um, blagging InDesign for about three months now.
> Crumbs, I completely misunderstood the use of blag in this context. My
> acquaintances seem to use it in the sense of 'talking up' rather than
> redistributing!

To blag; verb "option property goods or services by deception, malfeasance
or dissembling"

in article BB2B8508.3FF72%clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk, Clive Sweeting at
clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk wrote on 4/7/03 7:24 pm:

> On 4/7/03 18:11, in article 1fxl3ta.1mmhifc5t0bw4N%me8[at]privacy.net, "sw"
> <me8[at]privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> I've been um, blagging InDesign for about three months now.
>> Crumbs, I completely misunderstood the use of blag in this context. My
>> acquaintances seem to use it in the sense of 'talking up' rather than
>> redistributing!
>
> To blag; verb "option property goods or services by deception, malfeasance
> or dissembling"
>
Or - to get in somewhere free, or get on the guest list.

God. This pedantry is starting to affect my RT life. Got flamed somewhere
else for referring to 'violation of the FAQ'. <sigh>

I've got InDesign on one of those freebie discs. Will check out (Sunday)...

On 5/7/03 11:04, in article 1fxmeef.1vzmiuh1homhuiN%me8[at]privacy.net, "sw"
<me8[at]privacy.net> wrote:

>> To blag; verb "option property goods or services by deception, malfeasance
>> or dissembling"
>
> Thank you -- I must reassess my acquaintances :-)

I must learn to spell or switch of the auto-correct in Entourage. Should be
"obtain"

Clive Sweeting <clive[at]sweet-apple.co.uk> wrote:

> On 5/7/03 11:04, in article 1fxmeef.1vzmiuh1homhuiN%me8[at]privacy.net, "sw"
> <me8[at]privacy.net> wrote:
>
> >> To blag; verb "option property goods or services by deception, malfeasance
> >> or dissembling"
> >
> > Thank you -- I must reassess my acquaintances :-)
>
> I must learn to spell or switch of the auto-correct in Entourage. Should be
> "obtain"

Switch off auto-correct.
All it does is make one lazy and stupid and reinforces the mistakes -
what more could you want from a piece of software?
A typo is a lot easier for the rest of the world to interpret than a
correctly spelt but completely wrong word.

I didn't think it was a typo, I thought you were being all stock-brokery
and "optioning" the goods. Sort of made sense.

--
Pd

PeterD <pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:

> I think intense copy protection with dongles or product activation for
> products like Quark is very much a double-edged sword.

Start by making it relatively easy to get for nothing, and lots of
people will use it. When enough people are 'hooked' (either because they
are used to the product or because everyone else uses it and so it's
'needed' for compatibility) stop making it easy to get for free.

People will pay for it then.


It worked for Windows. And crack dealers.

-z-






--
"I'm not sure how useful this is, but it's bloody clever."
- Jonathon Sanderson in uk.comp.sys.mac
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting

On 5/7/03 13:20, in article 1fxmkvp.ngnrqdw095c2N%pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid,
"PeterD" <pd.news[at]dsl.pipex.invalid> wrote:

> All it does is make one lazy and stupid and reinforces the mistakes -
> what more could you want from a piece of software?

I feel very lazy and stupid today. So I like the little squiggle to tell me
when its wrong....

Bruce Horrocks wrote:
>
> A common, but partial, solution is to release "Lite" and "Pro" versions
> with certain key features disabled/enabled appropriately. An example is
> Mathematica (not that the student version is particularly cheap. ;-) )
>
> The difficulty with this is how to sufficiently cripple the product
> while still making a valid learning tool?

Corel used to supply old versions of Draw at much reduced price and with
the manuals in electronic form. This at least lets you get a feel for
the product and then upgrade to the latest and greatest.

Alec