GraphicsDesign in America
designer88 (32 pencils) | Sun, 2009-09-27 20:37Hi :)!
I have a question, that i can`t find a normal answer !!!
I want now - that in America to a work graphic designer in polygraphy or design company:
1)What programms i MUST to now ???? P.S I think "Photoshop,Illustator,Indesign"........
2) If i know Photoshop-good and Illust.ft Indesign not very good....can i work in some company as assistant near a designer...and if i work as assistant ...will a company give me a salary ????
After this questions i think have some more.... ;)
Thanks in advance :))
Commenting on this Forum topic is closed.
What the fuck.
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
First thing you need to do is brush up on your English.
The basic programs you'll probably need to know are the ones you said - Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign and/or Quark. But there are all kinds of jobs so you might start out working on some proprietary system in a production house or something - you never know. Learn your way around a computer so you look and sound competent - that would be my advice.
Good luck.
also understand that the computer skills are *not* what they're hiring you for. it's good to know adobe CS programs, but if you can't come up with good concepts and you don't know how to properly execute them (good typography, clean layouts), all the computer skills in the world won't help.
Art D. Rector , gwells - thanks for answers.....I understand)!! I must to learn good this programms....i now it...but i`m begin to graphicdesign not for a long time!! after some days...a go to courses of english..i now that it`s very Important !
I have a one question moreee ))) - What diploma a must to have....for work in a good company in future... ???? If i haven`t a good institut diploma....will i can get a job ???
A degree will open the door for you at some companies - yes. But there are people in this business with no degrees too. Creative people with nice portfolios might get a shot at an agency or something without a degree. People with computer skills can get a job at a production house. There are all kinds of jobs in this field - you don't have to be creative, you don't need computer skills and you don't need a degree - but any one of the three (or better yet - all three of them) - will make it easier to find work. I know people who started out as the press cleaner at a printer and have their own companies now - hard work and perseverance can pay off just as well as creativity, computer skills or a degree.
Now... which degree? That's up to you. What do you like to do? If it's graphic design - shoot for that. If you like web design, go in that direction. If you like communications, there are degrees for that. This business is wide open - there are all kinds of careers available and no rules that cover every aspect of the business. Do what you enjoy and you'll never have to "work" a day in your life.
So get going.
Not being able to speak English, or type it I can understand. But do people really use multiple parentheses in other languages?
My advice is to learn to draw a chicken. Seriously. Drawing a chicken like it was nobodys business is what got me into art school.
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
to Leaky Penny :
1) If you can`t or don`t want to give me advice - please go and DRAW your chicken!! but don`lt floodd in my theme!!!
2) multiple parentheses - We use it as a smilie ":-D, :), :(, -))), ))),,,,,,,,,,,"!!!!!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
to Art D. Rector
Hm.... )) Thanks for very extensive answer...In our country precisely as at you coutry !!
If a man have good computers skills, creative ideas - he can get a very good job in our country without any diploma. But if you have a diploma, certainly you can get more good job in a big company.
As to me i now Adobe Photoshop, Coreldraw (in ouy country 95% polygraphy firm,work with CORELDRAW)...but soon I will start to study Illustrator + Indesign or Quark Express !!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I heard that in America - your design company`s, polygraphy - don`t use Coreldraw in their work...only Indesign or Quark ???? It is the truth?
Haha, ok ok ok, fair enough! Bacaw!
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
From what I've seen Corel Draw is mostly used in signage companies and small design firms who do flyers and the like, as well as some T-shirt companies.
Creative Suite and Quark are what's mostly used by Graphic Designers and Press companies. Although, admittedly, I've never run into a Quark user myself, not in the last 8 years anyway. (Not trying to start a debate, just personal experience.)
The Construct Agency
Building Creative Brands for People
quark is a dying program, at least from what i've seen in the US in the past 3-4 years. i've seen even diehard quark users shift. especially after Q2ID plugin came out to convert quark to InD.
corel draw used to have a small beachhead in the lower-end corporate market, but it has never made much of any inroads in the professional design market here.
Quark user right here (20+ years). Have no desire to switch and doubt I ever will. The last thing I want to do is jump on yet another Adobe upgrade treadmill.
I still use Quark for SOME projects, but I have to say InDesign has won me over...it was the @#%$ duotones when distilling to a PDF that drove me over the edge. I realize that they came in with a patch fix for it several months later after the release of 7, but it was a little too late for me and five freaking brochures I was working on for one of my clients. THANK GOD she had the patience to stay with me...
"Art -- the one achievement of Man which has made the long trip up from all fours seem well advised." - James Thurber
Not really sure what you're referring to there - I've never had any problems with duotones. But - agreed - Quark users DO have to deal with the occasional "pitfalls" Adobe purposely places in front of us in order to get us to switch... but to me, switching over would merely be rewarding the Evil Empire for their shenanigans. One can also make the case that if InDesign was a superior program, they wouldn't need to play these games... right? ;-)
amusingly, long before adobe became the "empire" that it is, most designers had a love/hate relationship with quark. love it because there was no comparable product, hate it because there was no comparably bad software company to quark. i'm sure they've gotten better, but they totally lost me years ago by being so arrogant and greedy. for all of the negative publicity about adobe (some deserved, for sure), they still haven't been as bad as quark in their heyday.
That was a wonderful marketing campaign on Adobe's part - I admit. That combined with flooding the market with free copies of InDesign and buying the "support" of every Mac magazine in the country certainly put ID on equal footing (sales-wise) with Quark. Personally, I've never had a problem with Quark and my experience with Adobe is they couldn't answer a question about their own software if their lives depended on it (again - 20+ years using both companies' products). But who cares about support? Professionals like us rarely (if ever) need support anyway. What's harder to get past is the fact that Adobe had to use their favorite routine - program killing - to get ID where it is now. Pagemaker users were the ones that had to take the hit this time. And don't forget - PM was a huge seller! Adobe killed the program just for a chance to grab Quark's market share of professional users too. Adobe thought they could make even MORE money with ID, so sorry PM users - we're canceling your program. LiveMotion, GoLive, Pagemill and Freehand (and who knows how many other programs) users know this routine too. Who knows? Maybe ID is next on the kill list if Quark rebounds with their latest version 8 (which is amazing by all accounts). Because - after all - if there's one thing we know about Adobe... they certainly don't let their users' skill sets get in the way of making a buck. "Greedy"? Sorry... Quark is not even in the same league with Adobe when it comes to greed. These days, even Microsoft must bow to their expertise in that department.
As always... jmho.
you've had a very different experience w/quirk than i have. even the most ardent quark supporters that i've worked with have always admitted how horrible a company it was when we talked about it.
quark shot themselves in the foot. designers would not have left them in droves if they weren't so bad to begin with. they overpriced the product, the overpriced the upgrades, they rarely actually created any significant upgrades until indesign came along. all because they had no competition.
i'm not going to defend adobe, i'm not an adobe apologist. but it's revisionist history to suggest that quark isn't responsible for it's own demise. the quark fanbase was quite loyal, in many ways, but a large portion of their user base felt unappreciated by the company itself for years, which made it much easier for adobe to pick it off. unlike the other companies adobe competed with, which they eventually bought to kill, quark managed to do it to themselves and save adobe the trouble. it takes a lot of work to alienate a captive user base like that.
You're not giving your own field - advertising - the credit it deserves. Adobe bought off every Mac magazine in the country to promote InDesign over Quark (one well known publication even changed it's name for Adobe). It's very simple for MacWorld or MacUser or any of the other publications... Quark only has one program to sell while their magazine's livelihoods practically depend on Adobe's full page ads for the 20 or so titles they sell. Who would win the "destop publishing title" in your "comparisons" if that is the reality you faced? Adobe - of course. The idea Adobe pushed was the exact "argument" you are pushing now - that Quark didn't "appreciate" it's customers. In what way can you better appreciate your customers than giving them the best page layout program in the world? You say Quark didn't create any "significant upgrades", but how can that be true when virtually every feature in InDesign was stolen from Quark? InDesign was created to BE like Quark because professionals had already rejected PageMaker. So that idea is ridiculous on face value. When it comes to upgrades, the difference is Quark doesn't sell bloat - Quark upgrades when it's an UPGRADE. Not when they need to meet quarterly earnings like Adobe. So you pay $299 every 3-4 years for Quark or $149 every 18-24 months for ID - it's the same deal in the longterm - nothing is "overpriced". These are all ideas Adobe sold the public thru their marketing campaign.
The way InDesign became the "market leader" is simple... Adobe learned it from Microsoft - flood the market with free product (or next to free thru multiple software packaging) and drown your competition. That is what happened with InDesign. Old Quark users get a free copy and new artists coming up never look at Quark because ID comes free for the price of Illustrator and Photoshop in the CS packaging. After a few years ID controls the market and people stop using Quark because it's inconvenient - NOT because of silly ideas like "Quark doesn't appreciate it's users". It's marketing, gwells. Smart marketing - I give Adobe credit for that, but that's all it is - marketing.
i have no idea what you're ranting about here. you're making huge presumptions about me and every other designer out there.
first of all, i came to my own conclusions on the two programs. i really don't give a crap what the magazines say. the people who i'm talking about are people who used quark on a daily basis and are people who said the things i said long before indesign even existed, when the only competition was pagemaker. quark didn't appreciate its users when pagemaker was owned by aldus and that has and had nothing to do with adobe. zero, nada, zilch. i'm not an adobe apologist, i'm not trying to say they don't fight dirty. i'm just saying quark made their own bed. adobe had a downhill fight with quark because quark had been shooting itself in the foot for years.
"Having gained a marketshare of approximately 90% in the 1990s, Quark was criticized for having overly long innovation cycles and being too expensive, which encouraged Adobe to launch Adobe InDesign in 1999." (wikipedia)
second, Quark upgrades were never in the $299 range. well, maybe they are now, but before indesign, they were more like $500+. and closer to $895 for a full package. if that's changed, it's because of competition. it has nothing to do with what adobe sold to the public, that's what people said *BEFORE* there was an indesign. it was a long-term issue.
oh, and "every 3-4 years" happened *AFTER* indesign. before indesign? not so much.
major upgrades? Q3, 1990. Q4 1997. Q5 2002.
finally, where's my "free copy" of indesign? i never saw that offer to "old quark users."
so while adobe may have used "smart marketing" to kill (or maim) quark, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of what they said was true. quark was its own worst enemy.
again, this isn't a support of adobe, its policies, its business practices, or anything like that. it's purely based off of working with quark for years when there were no other options and going through plenty of bitch sessions with other designers and design firms at AIGA events or at different jobs. quark did itself in with it's draconian "it's us or nothing" mentality. a lot of people walked away from quark and said "good riddance" not because of anything adobe said, but because indesign had some significant improvements by the time it got to CS1 and because quark had spent years making people feel unwanted.
this may not have been your personal experience, but i promise you it was my personal experience and that of many, many others. had they made the effort to reach out to their user-base, maybe it would have been different. but they were entrenched and bloated themselves and dismissive of their user base:
"The release of QuarkXPress version 5 in 2002 led to a conflict with Apple, as it did not support Mac OS X, while InDesign 2.0, launched in the same week, did. At the same time the Quark CEO Fred Ebrahimi exclaimed that "the Macintosh platform is shrinking," and suggested that anyone dissatisfied with Quark's Mac commitment should "switch to something else,". (wikipedia, cited to http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/787/)
yup, their CEO actually suggested that his user-base could, essentially, STFU or GTFO. brilliant. shockingly, people did.
Whoa. Big can of worms there. First off, let's not pull out the Mac history dicks. Secondly, don't take it personal - if you like InDesign, fine. I prefer Quark myself. The only thing I'm doing here is honestly reporting what occurred back in the day. Now - again - just observing here - not accusing or anything. You say you're not influenced by magazines (and by extension, advertising obviously) - but then you give me an anonymous wikipedia post (below a mag on the credibility scale, btw) and a clip from MacDaily to back up your argument - two publications. So obviously you are influenced in some way (as is EVERYONE - let's not fool ourselves here). And keep in mind, advertising is not A, B, C... I read the mag, it influences me, I buy. It's creating an impression that filters down and eventually leads to sales. For example: You never have a problem with Quark but other people start making the claim that "they don't respect their customers". The idea is planted, it takes root, someone else says something similar... you see my point? It starts small and it grows. And don't get me wrong - I'm not saying no one was ever unhappy with Quark - I'm sure there were some people who were. But Adobe (again - WISELY from a marketing standpoint) picked at a small wound and made it much larger. And money is a huge influence here. Behind the scenes of any publication the bottom line is always money. Now sure maybe this Quark guy made that statement, but how does it PLAY in the publication? Is it featured? Or is it a small quote on page 24b? The publication decides what to make out of the quote. You might THINK the publication is just reporting - but are they? Are you SURE they're not being influenced by their advertisers' money? Let's experiment with that idea for a moment - go to the link you provided...
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/787/
Here is the entire source article for your wikipedia quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Dissatisfied with Quark’s Mac commitment? Quark CEO says ‘switch to something else’
Monday, November 25, 2002 - 07:00 PM EDT
"Publishing professionals who attended a Quark-convened 'executive summary' in New York last week are still abuzz over the performance of Quark CEO Fred Ebrahimi... [who] told his squirming guests that "the Macintosh platform is shrinking," and that "publishing is dying." He suggested that anyone dissatisfied with Quark's Mac commitment should "switch to something else," although he insisted that making the move to Adobe's long-Carbonized InDesign package is 'committing suicide.' 'Everyone was stunned, and most folks left by noon,' one attendee reported. 'It was awful,'" reports MacEdition. The entire article is here."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still with me? What do we find directly below the article? TWO ads for Adobe...
"Adobe is offering a coupon for the full version of InDesign 2.0 software, a US$699 value when you purchase a new Apple Power Mac G4 before December 31, 2002. More info here.
Adobe's 'Converting to InDesign' page, including info on switching from Quark to InDesign is here."
Proves my point from two angles... First off, this publication was obviously making money from (and therefore influenced by) Adobe at the time (2002). Secondly, we see positive proof Adobe was flooding the market with free copies of InDesign just as I said... (Buy a G4 - get a free copy). That's the answer to your question - where you could have gotten a free copy (that's ONE way - there were MANY). The most common way is thru the CS packaging - the price is basically the price of the Illustrator and Photoshop stand alone programs. So purchase the CS package and you're getting a free copy of ID. Sorry gwells. I know people (especially IN this business) don't like to think they've been taken in by a marketing campaign - but it happens, dude. Here's a good thought... A lot of people think of advertising in the same terms as propaganda - therefore they don't like the idea of being influenced by a marketing/advertising campaign. But the other side of the coin is advertising is also an information vehicle that can lead you to products that make your life better. So if Adobe's campaign led you to InDesign and you're happier - you have no reason to feel guilty about it... right? :-)
As always - jmho.
not trying to make it personal, but your response felt like you were saying it was all advertising BS and the stuff i said wasn't true. my response is that i, and many other quark users, felt this way before indesign existed, let alone was advertised, so it can't be just the advertising.
there's a big difference between talking about the history of a program on wikipedia, anonymous or not, and a magazine review on the pros/cons of a program itself. i used wikipedia because it was easy. i'm sure if i bothered to spend more time searching i'd find more out there about people being dissatisfied. and the link came from the wikipedia article.
i'm still with you on his quote. and i read the entire quote before posting the link as well. and i remember when it happened. and i still think it was an amazingly stupid thing to say. but very telling when it comes to understanding quark's attitude toward it's customers.
maybe the magazine did push his quote because of advertising dollars, neither of us truly knows for sure. but nobody's disputing the *accuracy* of the quote. and i'm sure you know that the media will report anything outlandish a CEO says at a forum like that. i'm pretty comfortable that if the CEO of adobe had said, "Mac and publishing are dead, if they don't like illustrator on the PC, let them find another program (i.e., freehand) on the mac," that it would still have been outlandish and reported. and it would have been stupid, arrogant, and dismissive of your macintosh user base. the point of putting that quote out there was to show what type of attitude that quark had as a company toward their users. unfriendly.
as far as the ad below, "buy a G4 get a free copy" is not quite "get a free copy." spending thousands of dollars on a new computer and getting a free program (albeit an expensive one) is not "free." and it certainly isn't "flooding the market" when you have to spend thousands to get your free copy. but yes, they were certainly making it easier and using opportunities to sell the software at a loss to get market share. smart business practice if you have the wherewithal to eat the subsidized cost.
as far as the other point, it's been stipulated (adobe marketing is pervasive), so you can stop making that point. my contention isn't related to adobe marketing machine (stipulated, it's a beast and they either roll over or buy companies in their way), it's related to quark's lack of customer focus for years.
as far as advertising, i'm not saying advertising has absolutely no effect on me, but i am saying i don't care what quark or adobe say, the proof is in the pudding. and quark's pudding went bad. i worked in both programs for several years before switching completely. and after that still did work in quark for years, depending on the clients. i made the decision based on my personal experience in the end.
your example (For example: You never have a problem with Quark but other people start making the claim that "they don't respect their customers") isn't relevant to me, because i *DID* have problems and i *DID* know many others who did. not to say someone who hadn't might not be influenced by that, but your comment implies that it was uncommon for people to be dissatisfied with quark as a company, which is not necessarily accurate.
we'll have to agree to disagree here. you may be one of the first people i've ever met who didn't think quark had some serious issues with customer service and customer focus before indesign came around. even my most serious quark fanboi friends admitted to that. many of them still predominantly quark users. they waited it out until quark had no recourse but to treat their customers better. almost too late to save their business. quark had a weakness and adobe exploited it mercilessly. as they should have.
I'm not blaming Adobe for taking advantage of the situation. Quark was king and every king tends to rest on their laurels after awhile (as Adobe has done with Illustrator and Photoshop for years) - so some people had reason to be upset, I'm sure. 3dogmama brought up a specific problem she had with the program - I have no reason to doubt her veracity. I'm sure there was a percentage of people who got fed up with QXP for one reason or another. But it's one thing to not like the customer support - it's quite another to swap programs when you already own the license and know the program inside out. That's not how InDesign took Quark's place as the #1 layout program - they did it thru marketing. That's my point. You have to remember that a good marketing campaign is like good design - you don't see it - you're not aware that it's having an effect on you. The idea behind the campaign isn't seen as a sales pitch - it is a subtle effect pursued over the years that creates the imagined "common knowledge" that Quark is not responsive to their users. As I stated before, I've used the program since the earliest days and I've never had a problem with the company. Adobe? Worst customer service of any company I've ever dealt with. Not just software companies - ANY company. And I was a dealer for years - they even treat their DEALERS like shit. That was not enough to make me give up Illustrator for Freehand though.
So far as the quote - I remember it too. You say it was indicative of Quark's attitude. The other case can be made as well - that it was the culmination of years of assault on the company from Adobe and their journalistic minions (the very people at the media conference pressing the guy). Adobe was pushing the "Quark doesn't care" angle long before ID came along - as soon as they purchased Pagemaker from Aldus they went to work on that one. It didn't work back then because PM's rep was long set in stone and professionals wouldn't touch it. So the guy blew his top. It happens. I doubt that would be reason enough for most people to go spend $699 on a duplicate page layout program. Let's be real.
And while it's true ID is not really "free" if you have to buy a computer or a software package - it is if you're making those purchases anyway. Every new artist coming up will eventually purchase a computer - so that money is being spent anyway. Other users are upgrading to new computers and they get the program whether they need it or want it (this is how all of my friends got it). Same with the CS packages. If you're faced with purchasing Ill, PS and a page layout program... which way do you go? Three separate packages at full price (Ill, PS and Quark) or the CS package where you're effectively buying only 2 programs and getting the third "free"? Of course everyone will choose the substantially cheaper alternative - especially if the two programs are basically on equal footing when it comes to the "expert" comparisons. Or let's say you're already a user and you're faced with purchasing full versions PS and Ill because you're too far out of date on the upgrade cycle (as I am right now) - even if I have no desire to own ID, I still have to pay for PS and Ill... Adobe throws in ID at no extra charge. So most of the bases are covered - whether you want it or not - Adobe is going to find a way to put it in your software collection. Then you have the snowball effect - the ID users multiply as the number of Quark users stagnate. Look at the reality of the situation - how many people are going to spend the full price of ID - $699 - on what would essentially be duplicate software just because they didn't like Quark's "attitude"? It simply doesn't pass the giggle test. I'd bet the house you didn't purchase ID as a stand alone program at the full price. I've never met anyone who did - just like I've never met anyone who bought Photoshop at the full price. Adobe is smart - they know upgrades are where the real money is. They'll gladly GIVE you the software to lock you into the upgrades. Again... marketing.
* yawns, stretches, turns on bedside lamp, glances across at live feed of thread, checks if we've moved on, notices we haven't, yawns again, turns off lamp, pulls covers over head, makes mental note to dream about anything but work, sets body clock to check in again in a few hours*
Write a wise saying and your name will live forever – Anonymous.
http://theghostwriterinthemachine.blogspot.com
I think you'd serve a nobler cause if you went into the "Macs are shit" aisle.
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
Only if Moose promises to start scoring some points.
well, as i said, we'll have to agree to disagree. i'm not going to carry on with the discussion because we're not going to convince each other.
but i will make one comment here. you asked how many people purchased indesign as a standalone and not the CS package. i can tell you that my company's marketing department probably has more than 100 indesign only licenses (very large company, more than 200 people in marketing). they're for people who purely use indesign as our standard page layout package (marketing coordinators) and have no need (or skill) to use illustrator or photoshop. all of our designers have the full CS package, though. but that's something like 25 CS packages vs 100+ indesign only in my company alone.
designers? no, of course not. but let's face it, designers are not the only market for a page layout program. i suspect you'd find the numbers would surprise you as far as how many people buy it as a separate program. not the ratio it is in my company, i'm sure, but i'm willing to bet there are plenty of indesign-only packages sold. indesign alone, new license, is $699. CS4 suite premium is $1799. upgrades are $200 vs $600. this is not an insignificant price difference.
Well you're doing a lot of dancing there. I never said anything about "designers" buying the stand alone program - I said "people" and "users". Sure corporations are going to buy only what they need, but - again - let's be real here... corps follow trends. They get advice (What's the top page layout program?) and follow it. They're not comparing products or investigating customer support issues. The other side of that coin being if your company paid full price for 100 InDesign licenses, they need to fire their purchasing agent. As I said - Adobe was smart to flood the market. They did the same thing Microsoft did to knock off Netscape with IE and WordPerfect with Word (and also to secure most of the PC market with Windows over the Mac OS as well). It's a tried and true routine - business as usual. Nothing to be ashamed of - business is ruthless. But that is the REAL explanation why ID is #1 and not Quark. Now that ID is established as #1 - people who only need a page layout program WILL be purchasing it as a stand alone over Quark because it is the "standard". But that's after the fact - after the market was flooded with free product to make it #1.
PS: I notice you never answered the question about your own ID purchase. ;-)
you're even worse than i am about wanting to argue for the sake of arguing, but i'll answer a couple of your questions/comments and hopefully it can get put to bed.
i didn't see your question about my purchase. my original purchase was CS suite, educational price (was back in school at the time). my current version at home is owned by work. competitive upgrades are common practice, quark has done it as well. i only posted those prices because they were indicative of the difference in cost. you'll note i posted the upgrade costs, too (200 vs 500, 150% more for the suite). side note: quark is still more expensive at $800/300 than standalone InDesign.
i never said you said "designers." i used that word to split the two distinct markets that page layout programs are marketed to. designers, who buy suites and other users who don't need PS/IL/FL/DW/etc. those "other users" may actually be a larger market than designers. it's certainly not insignificant in comparison.
you are correct, our 100ish licenses were not full price. i don't happen to have the pricing available to compare what we're paying for a maintenance license (24 months, we can upgrade to whatever current version is out) for ID or CS. it's not going to be the full price, but the ratio between the two costs is likely very similar. the point i made still stands: it's far more expensive to purchase/upgrade the suite than it is to buy a single program.
regardless, with all of that you're still arguing against something i never posited (and continuing to beat a dead horse). i never said adobe's marketing didn't win the war. all i said/implied was that quark gave it a head start.
let me reiterate so it's not jumbled in all the other "stuff" that's been bouncing around.
quark was king, but the crown was tarnished. there were already users unhappy with the product and the company back when aldus owned pagemaker and long before adobe came out with indesign. you may not have been one of them, but that doesn't change the fact that they/we existed. adobe took advantage of that and found it much easier to push quark from the top of the hill because there was already a substantial user base who were itching for an alternative.
would they have succeeded if that weren't true? possibly, probably. but not as quickly nor as succinctly as they have.
all the arguments you're making about adobe really aren't directly relative to that point. they're just deflecting. we can agree to disagree on whether quark had a tarnished reputation (you obviously don't believe that) and i'd like to leave it there, since neither of our minds will change. the rest of the stuff about adobe is just deflection from my original comment that quark was their own worst enemy.
a few links to back up my contention.
http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles/a1/features/2004/greatest-post-on-quark-vs-indesign-ever/
http://www.cdiabu.com/blog/post/The-End-of-the-Road-for-Quark.php
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=c69d6ba53df30dec2fae6e85076cdca9&t=8654 (lots of quark bashing in there)
Well again we're back to what I said before - these supposedly "fair" comparisons in your sources are being written by people who are supported by Adobe. Your first and third links use the second link as their source material. If we go to the front page of that website - what do we see? Again - ads for Adobe. You're actually proving my point better than I could...
http://quarkvsindesign.com/
The top stories:
* Free QuarkXPress to InDesign CS4 Conversion Guide
* InDesign CS4: Top 10 New Features
* New Spring 2009 Colors Debut; Download Exclusive Swatches Palette
* Nested Styles: An InDesign Secret Weapon
* InDesign CS3: Mastering Design Collaboration
Four out of five are InDesign promotions as well - the fifth story having nothing to do with either. So not only are the ads promoting Adobe - so is the guy running the website - the dude who was quoted in your first link as the "authority" claiming ID is the better program. Being in the business - again - you have to look at the reality of the situation. If your magazine is getting 30% of their revenue from Adobe and Quark is only running one ad a month... who's side are you going to come down on? Adobe's, of course. Publications - like software companies - are a business. They're in it to make money. It doesn't make financial sense to upset your #1 advertiser by claiming their product (ID) is inferior to another company's product (QXP). I always point to the most obvious example of this type of selling out - Scott Kelby. You've probably heard of him...
http://www.scottkelby.com/magazine.html
From the description of Mac Design magazine...
"Mac Design Magazine
Scott co-founded and was Editor-in-Chief of Mac Design Magazine, the graphics magazine for Macintosh users, which has since been relaunched as "Layers Magazine, the how-to magazine for everything Adobe."
This was a guy who used to pretend he was impartial - running ID vs. QXP articles (where ID always won, of course) and pretending he didn't have a horse in the race. Before ID came along he ran PageMaker vs. QXP "comparisons" and PageMaker somehow was always (laughably) "even" with QXP. Then one day he totally gave up the farce and came right out and said he wouldn't be covering any other products anymore - that the magazine would only be about Adobe products. This story is a microcosmic example of the entire publishing industry. Adobe is king on the Mac like Microsoft is king on the PC - what they say goes.
not surprised your retort is to attack the messenger and ignore the message. let me know when you have an actual retort for the message.
Obviously one must always consider the source. But I'll let you have the last word.
That means "BACAW" ???
It's the sound a chicken makes.
Leaky Penny
Check out what I've been up to lately!
http://petersonjoseph.com
I'm going to print it out and eat it.
-Unknown Artist
haha )))) chicken sounds already by your part !!!
to Mintsauce , gwells :
Hmmm....I understand, but i think that Corel is not used at all....you said that used in small company`s.....OK :) tnanks for information......
it's not used enough that i would learn it. it's not used at companies that value design at all. it's used at places that like clipart.