InDesign 2 does all most of this right now, and for much less cash than Quark 6 will cost if it is ever released. Hey Quark, how about you stop with these smoke screens and atleast announce a ship date or *gasp* release a product!

I can't wait to move my business to OS X only. I personally don't care for InDesign. I've been using Quark for so long that my work flow requires it. Also, if InDesign wants to compete or outdo Quark, it has to be able to accpet *.qxd's. I would have switched if it wasn't that InDesign couldn't import a Quark document. I have so many that I can't take the time to re-do all my work. That's why I can't wait for Quark 6 and my OS X only shop.

Underscoring Quark's commitment to supporting standards

BWAHAHAHAhahaha. If there's a company *less* interested in supporting standards, I've yet to come across it. (And don't say Microsoft. Quark makes them look like Red Hat by comparison.)

Uh.. Indesign can import QXDs.. it's a main selling point. look here: http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/conversion.html

Anyway, My beef is they're putting all this effort into web creation tools in quark. Who wants to design a web page in quark? idiots..

Dammmmn I can't wait for this to be available. Quark is the ONLY program I still use in Classic, and when v6 comes out I'll never look back...

True, indesign can import QXD's, but it doesn't do a very good job of converting them. Quite S***** actually.
And I do agree with the implementation of web features, it doesn't really seem too useful...

"Who wants to design a web page in quark? idiots.."

It makes a lot of sense to be able to generate html from the source page layout files. If you can't use these features, then don't, but this is a great benefit for a lot of other people.

I think for certain types of publishing situations these web features could be great if they work well - create once, publish twice is the kind of holy grail that could keep Quark viable against the ever-encroaching Adobe, but it certainly won't be the right solution for everyone.

yeah it would be great, if web and print weren't different animals
what works in one doesn't always work in the other. Never mind the fact that by making your websites online ports of your print work you miss out on the whole scope of rich content that differentiates the web experience of your viewers. If Quark wants to go down that kind of road they should look at programs like Canvas and Corel which try to do way too much and wind up doing a half-assed job of everything instead of doing a few niche things extremely well.
As far as dismissing InDesign, the program is what 3 years old? Quark is how old? If Adobe puts the kind of energy and talent into InDesign that they put into Photoshop, it will shortly make Quark look like M$ Publisher.

evolve or die

Our OPI functionality hasn't been implemented in InDesign yet. So it's kinda hard to move from Quark over to ID. Still, ID seems so heavy compared to Quark I doubt we will ever switch. Maybe Quark lacks many features ID has. But having an app that's half way between layout and design / art still has to convince me. At least, I know I can fully work on line art in Illustrator, pics in PhotoShop.

yes when it comes down to drawing the bottom line...most designers will probably choose Quark over inDesign based on the true power the program provides. However, Quark should have been on the ball over 3 yrs ago planning for an OSX release considering the market share mac's hold in the publication world. IMO release v5 was a much needed update, however it was wasted effort that should have gone into an OSX version considering the timeline it was probably developed under (the months preceeding the jaguar release!!!...wouldn't that have kicked inDesign's butt back onto the curb). I predict in under 5 years Quark's market share will be dwindling on the edge of non-existance