|
Feel free to search all your favorite desktop publishing and graphic design topics here ... or anywhere on the web. Simply select the appropriate button below. |
|
Add URL | Altman@Large | ArtLinx | Awards | Backgrounds | BookStore | Bright Ideas Calendar | Clipart & Imaging | Cool Stuff | Design | dtp Links | dtp Services dtp Software | Exit | Fonts | Free Stuff | Graphics Sites | Graphic Utilities | Guestbook Home | Icons | Java | Job Bank | Macintosh | Magazines | Message Boards | News Photoshop | Press Releases | Reviews | Search | Showcase | Sponsorship | Store Templates | Tips | Vendors | Web Designer's Paradise | Windows |
Posted by bruce everett on June 09, 1998 at 08:59:56:
In Reply to: Re: Pagemaker vs. Quark posted by John A. Larson on March 19, 1997 at 04:05:38:
: : Help! Everyone is talking Quark this and Quark that. Wouldn't it make more sense to use Pagemaker if using other Adobe products ie: illustrator, photoshop...or is Quark that much superior?
I've started working professionally as a DTPer for about a year now, and although i feel the need to take quark classes and layout documents for practice, it Suprises me that Quark is seen as an industry standard. It seems that everything you do from bringing in a graphic to typing requires two steps as opposed to Pagemaker's "plug n play" usage. Like I said, I struggle learn and work with Quark in order to function in the DTP world, but I just don't like it. if anyone can give a point for point explanation of why Quark is considered better than Pagemaker and an industry standard, please drop me a line.