Neo TheMatrix said:
Well, I guess when I started using the app I thought it would be a
more intuitive program. I have found the opposite to be true. I am
not happy with the limited text maniupulation, importing table
information has also been "quarky" (sorry for the pun) at best.
High-end programs are always quirky.
I have always liked the MS apps even with their flaws for text, data
and graphic (limited) manipulation. It does seem that a lot of print
companies aren't likely to agree, though.
No, because when programs do things for you, it will normally make their job
harder.
I went with Quark because I was led to believe it is a widely used,
and accepted program.
It is.
It is not worth what was paid for it.
Unless you learned to use it, your computer would be at best a very
expensive ornament, and more likely just a worthless heap of junk.
QuarkXPress is pretty much the same, except it has a steeper learning curve
and really requires professional training to learn to use effectively.
Although I may take a closer look at the other programs you
mentioned, do you know if they are easily exported to have an outside
publisher print?
QuarkXPress, InDesign, and PageMaker have pretty similar levels of
acceptance among outside printing services. Publisher is the hardest in
that respect, as it has no native PDF export (yet) and the majority of
services won't take .pub files.
However, InDesign is, like QuarkXPress, a professional-level application and
so is hard to use. PageMaker may be slightly easier, but is still not as
user-friendly as Publisher.
It's a similar situation to any other kind of tools; the better (and more
expensive) tools are harder to learn to use, but are better to use once you
have learned how.
