Is QuarkXPress still in the game?

[Blankity Blank]

She won't go wrong learning InDesign first, but you're better of knowing both. There's still more than enough places using Quark that you'll still want it in your toolbox is you're serious.

That said, the bulk of the files we received used to be Quark, but those days have been over for awhile. It's either ID or PDFs now; I'd guess about a 50/50 mix. We receive native Quark files only a little more often than we get in Zip discs. ;-)

[Mike Sellers]

[quote tuqqer]Whenever I work with designers, they fall into 2 camps: those that have been around for a decade or more all use Quark. Those that are newer, or love to innovate, all use ID.
Then there's the third group, those who used Quark for a decade or more and then switched to InDesign (like me). I only have one client who still uses Quark and that's mostly because they have so many legacy files that are used to build current files. But even they're gradually switching over.

I'm sure Quark will still be a player for years to come but their dominance of the print publishing industry is over, judging from my experience.

[Mike V]

I agree with everything in this thread.

I still use Quark.

I'd love to switch to InDesign, but it's so scarey to switch from something you are very comfortable with.

Maybe in 2008 I'll switch, but I said this last year and the year before also.


I always recommend up and comers to learn InDesign first when I'm asked.

[jdc]

[quote tuqqer]
Whenever I work with designers, they fall into 2 camps: those that have been around for a decade or more all use Quark. Those that are newer, or love to innovate, all use ID.
kinda crappy statement?

ive seen PLENTY of non innovative crappy work done in ID, so not sure what the point is of that kind of statement?

many previous ID users were PainMaker users, which produced tons of innovative work, but sucked tit as an application

they are just tools, creativity isnt enhanced by either one...

[$tevie]

I didn't really get that "love to innovate" remark, either.

[D. Lawson]

[quote jdc]i bet if you ask your printer in LA what kind of files he gets -- but add PDF to your list -- then PDF would be on top by a ton
This.

I have managed a prepress/layout department for over 10 years, and X1A has become our format of choice for color work. At this point, I see around a 50/50 split between Quark 6/7 and InDesign CS3 as far as the initial layouts go. It was around 80/20 in favor of Quark 5/6 vs. InDesign CS2, with the occasional X1A file. CS and earlier weren't even worth tracking, and were pretty much worthless. We still use Quark for internal layouts, partially due to legacy templates, but mainly due to InDesign being slower (still!) and not playing as nicely with legacy PostScript Level 2 RIPs. Quark is very much still in the game, regardless of what recent design school graduates who received nice Creative Suite educational discounts might tell you.

Full disclosure: I will admit to some lingering InDesign disdain over the 1.5 upgrade debacle and false promises (read: lies) about how modular it was, and how easy it would be to upgrade faulty/buggy components. Both have become fine tools, but anyone who thinks one is better than the other just doesn't know both programs well enough. And, as Blankity Blank says, anyone who is serious should know both.