[Scribus] Scribus in the Art Lab

[Tom Hicks]

In message <200604032349.15819.cbradney at zip.com.au>
          Craig Bradney <cbradney at zip.com.au> wrote:

> On Monday 03 April 2006 23:34, pixelnate wrote:
>> Craig Bradney wrote:
>> >> may change in the future. Remember, Quark wasn't really accepted by the
>> >> industry until v3.3, and Indesign was a steaming pile of poo for v1 and
>> >> v2. I cannot wait to see Scribus v3!
>> >
>> > Which is a load of crap.. ID had already pretty much taken hold of the
>> > market over Quark with 2.
>>
>> That is simply not the case. InDesign still does not have more
>> marketshare than Quark, and it didn't really take hold until it was
>> bundled in the CS suite. V1&2 were both originally intended for Mac OS9,
>> and it wasn't until Adobe shipped CS which included an OSX-only version
>> of InDesign that it was really embraced. There were *many* bugs in the
>> first two versions that kept people at bay. And FWIW, many designers
>> here is Texas are still loyal to Quark. Personally, I like Indesign
>> because it previews better than Quark does, but v7 is supposed to be
>> pretty slick.
> 
> Maybe in Texas..
marketshare can be deceptive, when a new product is launched, even if 
it is 10X better than its competitors, it won't have the same 
marketshare. there will be those who have been using the same workflow 
for ten year's, it works perfectly for what they need it for, so why 
should they change? point in hand, I know a good editor, who put 
together an (inhouse) publication every 1/2 months using the 
old-fashioned method of cutting and pasting the pieces out physically. 
he can use a word processor to do all the text editing, but is it 
really worth him learning it all again when he's retired? Also would 
you change a postscript workflow that doesn't need changing (no 
changing reqiments etc) that has worked the last 15 years?

--