4 ms·
It was Quark that lost the game for themselves, mostly. Hubris and bad timing. Quark was really expensive, didn't support transparency (had to make shadows and
by mattkevan 10y ago
It was Quark that lost the game for themselves, mostly. Hubris and bad timing.
Quark was really expensive, didn't support transparency (had to make shadows and overlays in PS and import in as TIFFs), and they totally botched the OSX transition with v5 which was again expensive and buggy.
Adobe releasing Creative Suite which worked on OSX and cost less than the new version of Quark, meant it was a no-brainer considering you still needed photoshop and acrobat anyway.
In its defence, Quark was really snappy - something Indesign has never matched.
- grzm 10y agoIt was Quark that lost the game for themselves, mostly. Hubris and bad timing. That was my impression, too. Kinda sad. Quark was really snappy I remember QuarkXPress 3.32 being snappy; v4 seemed more sluggish, if memory serves. Moved from v4 to InDesign. Oh, boy. This is bringing back memories of system crashes. That's been a while.
- Angostura 10y agoNot only was Quark Express expensive, had had enforced incompatibility between point versions. So if you had a news room with 20 copies of 3.3.2 and employed a new person and 3.3.3 was out, you had to spend thousands on updating everyone else.