Hi Timo,
First of all, thanks a lot for your instant answer.
I've tried updating links and it works fine with the files already recognized (the files that I linked under OSX), but the most important big group of files continue appearing with a question mark over a red dot in the links palette. They need a relinking operation. I repair one, expecting an automatically recognition of the new folder path for the rest of them, but.... it seems that need a relinking one by one...
is there any way of cleaning the path for all links and suggest a new links folder?
Thanks again.

Yes, Quark uses (first) a relative path link. That means that Quark looks at all links in relation to the location of the Quark Xpress file itself. This can be very useful. Take your graphics, and your document and put in the same folder TOGETHER. Now open and work the file. The links will actually repair themselves.

This is why people who run catalogs and magazines with thousands of links to manage, always locate the documents INSIDE the same folder with the images. If not, every time you move the dociuments, all the links are severed. Quark always looks in its immediate folder FORST. If QuarkXpress finds what it needs there, it will look no further. These are things that I train publishers on that become really important in managing job files.

There is one exception. If these files were saved from one type to another... Like Tiffs linked, then resaved as EPS, you will have to manually re-link every one I'm afraid.. HTH

SORRY, I just read the prior post, was about InDesign. BUT, you're in luck, most of these methods are also supported by InDesign, let me know if that works.
_________________
JoePostscript -- support administrator

--
Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide


.

Hi everyone !!,
I'm still with my problem. I realize that the big matter is the platform issue. When I moved from PC to OSX all the links are still trying to find the pictures under "c:/..../...." but in Mac is "MacintoshHD:......:......." . As I try to repair one link, others are still trying to search under c:/.../........ Accepting the matter that I will have to relink everything again (hundreds of files), is there any way to relink a group of equal links together, I mean, I have many links to "ntope.tif",
1.- can I select them all in anyway and make the relink one time?. I'm trying to do that but Indesign asks me to do it one by one.
2.- can I use any special script for changing the path of all pictures to a new reference folder.
3.- Is there any way to force a group relinking operation? the automatic way is not working for this case?
Any helps or suggestions are wellcome.
Thanks a lot.

Andres

The only thing else I can think of is putting the Indy file in the same folder with the artwork, then open it. It should see all the links then, and link them all up.

I've already tried that but seems the problem is that indesign searches in a wrong path and when I correct one, it doesn't use this new path for the rest of pictures....

I have never dealt with this kind of problem before, going from PC to mac. I would have to say put in a question to the Indy people and see if they answer

My guess is it's a translation issue between Pagemaker (from the PC side) to InDesign (on the Mac side). Pagemaker must not embed the image file links the same way Quark and InDesign does so InDesign can't figure out how to reset the links and needs them redefined one-by-one. I don't think there is any way around that. It would be different if you were dealing with OPI images from a digital asset management system because the file links would be embedded in the image itself and would be platform/page layout application neutral.

I did a test between InDesign on PC and Mac and from Quark on Mac to InDesign on PC and the relinking feature worked in both scenarios as advertised in my previous post. You open up the links pane, select the files and then choose the path from the browse dialog that you want to link the image(s) to.

Sorry I can't be of further help.
_________________
Timothy Boyden
Network Administrator
MailCoups, Inc.

Expertise: Windows, Mac, Linux/UNIX Support, Adobe CS, Quark, Prinergy Connect/Insite, Programming (PHP, VB, CSH, HTML), Trendsetter News 50, Magnum/Didde Presses

Hey guys, I finally find the best chance to repair my problem with links. People from Adobe must take a look to this plugin from Slendro "Picturelinks". I tried the demo they send me through email and works perfect with a lot of different solutions for linking problems. Although $99. is expensive for the third world designers, hey Adobe !! Wake up guys. I'm sure in Quark I shouldn't waste so much time with this kind of problems.
Thanks a lot Timo for your patience.

I always used InDesign when I went to school for graphic design, thought it was the best program in the world... well now I work at a print shop and I never thought I would say this, but Quark just works to print from... InDesign just crashes all the time, freezes and is completely temperamental for me, which makes it tough to use because I really need dependability when I am trying to get a file to RIP, and as much as I love adobe and want to love InDesign, it is only good for design, not so much for print

Watch out BM, we have a Quark lover on hand. All jokes beside, you are right to a certain extent. Since I do not use Preps or anything like it, I have found that I can put together runout files simply in Quark, where in InDesign, it is much more time used. Quark is like a child first going to school when real young, it listens. InDesign is like a teenager. It can do more, but is much more tempremental. It only likes to do things that it likes, and not what it is needed to do.

pmpl@cleveland - haa mate - ya got me. i cant resist!

i will concede that quark does seem to print files quicker than adobe apps.....

i disagree about it being more problematic though - i have more trouble with quack be it ripping large files or dodgy fonts - but it is horses for courses - and it can depend on system set up, performance and system maintenance too - regular cache cleaning <onyx/font finagler> and running smooth systems - and the user too.

my indy1, cs2 and 3 have few issues running on my ppcg5 3.5gram etc etc - just yesterday i had a large file in quack that wouldnt rip - perion. ripped a postscript, pdf'd, checked, dropped in indy and wallop - done in first hit.

anyway - that aside - each to their own
_________________
expertise: nothing

just like some like a light beer, some like the richer, hoppier stuff. Bud versus Miller, English versus the Irish. France versus the rest of the world (nobody likes the French).

i bloody love em for bottling it against us on saturday!!!

the worst defending rugby world champions of all time are in the final!!!

bring it on springboks - we'll handle it - and we have a revenge agenda - and THAT is good motivation.
_________________
expertise: nothing

I've been using InDesign for a couple of years now and always use it instead of Quark 6 - much prefer the Adobe interface and integration with the other Adobe products and the fact that I can use alpha transparency, drop shadows etc within the app. Quicker and easier.

While there are cases where some programs just excel over others, and techno-Darwinism kicks in, I don't think that's going to be the case with InDesign and Quark.

Quark was my first publishing page-making program, and I'm entirely comfortable with it. When colleagues started railing, "Quark is dead; long live InDesign," I realized that InDesign had indeed managed to capture a fair share of the marketplace, but that didn't mean I had one good reason to give up my effort in one learning curve to start over with another.

I sail with Quark. I can accomplish what I need to. I don't have a reason to switch.

It's much the same as my preference for Freehand over Illustrator.

I started with Freehand, and it's still intuitive for me; Illustrator still feel clunky. That doesn't mean it IS clunky; it's just that way for me.

Same with Quark. Same with having a Mac OS.

I believe that we tend to stick with programs and operating systems that work for us.

So, unless InDesign or Quark suddenly leaps ahead in ways that the other can't effectively compete with, I think it comes down to our comfort levels.

When I was trying to figure out what program to adopt for my first website (the-pack.biz), I had a real tough time sorting through it until a pal suggested I build it in Quark.

I know Quark isn't ideal for this--Dreamweaver seems to be the industry standard--but I hadn't even realized I COULD build a site in Quark. With an opportunity to significantly reduce my learning curve, I tried it out, and I couldn't be happier. I just needed to create a brochure site, and Quark gave me every tool I needed...with very little learning curve.

So, again, where we have an opportunity to stay within our comfort zone, SOMETIMES it makes sense to stay there. And, where there's a real opportunity to grow, sometimes we need to leave it.

I've yet to perceive the need to move away from Quark.

This is my first post in this group. It's an interesting forum; I've been a production artist, designer, art director, creative director, cartoonist, writer, and editor for 30+ years, and it's great to see such attention paid to an aspect of this business that is generally undervalued and not respected as much as it should be.

--Lee Nordling

lee.nordling, glad you could join us. I am with you, in the aspect of if you work well in one, and don't need the other, there is no reason to change. As for many pre-press people here, we know a little bit about a lot of programs. Over the years, you learn more and more, but until you design for years in one program, or multiple programs, you just try to keep up. As for Freehand, if you haven't already heard, our friends at Adobe have bought them out, and are going to set her out to pasture. Otherwise, give her a few years, and people will not be using it anymore in full swing. As for the debate, give me a good black and white medical boook anytime. That kind of stufff needs no attention, and if it is all type, even better.

Yep, I'd heard Freehand had been bought out of existence, and I lament the loss.

Fortunately (for me), my heavy-design days are behind me, and as my packaging company produces more and more books, I'll be using my designers to deal with the project-specific designs that we generate.

I'll keep my hand in Quark, Photoshop, and Freehand for personal projects that I choose to produce myself, and should some new version of Illustrator finally tempt me away from Freehand and into the learning curve from hell...well, it'll be a trade off I'll be willing to make at the time (because I'll know the pot of gold will be worth it).

Thanks for the info!

--Lee

Don't feel bad to jump in with comments or questions anytime here. Joe is a great host here, who knows a lot about a lot, but there are many here who have their own specialties, and somehow, the answers almost always get answered

Hey everyone! Just joined the forum today, and couldn't find an introduction thread, so I might as well start here.

My first design app was Quark 4 in college, and I've been using it on a daily basis ever since. I'm now using Q7 (on a XP machine both at home and at work), love it, and can get everything done with it in a hurry.

I really do need to sit down and learn InDesign, but it's just a matter of finding time to do so. That's where the industry is headed, and I can do basic tasks and editing with it, but it feels very foreign to me, and nowhere near as fast.

So long story short, I can do great things with Quark, but really need to get up to speed on InDesign to really get a feel for it.

My first post, too. I've been using Quark since version 2 (along with Cricket Draw). Had a job where I had to use PageMaker, and hated it. Then Quark 3 came out with the interface we all know and love. I became Quark's biggest fan. Tried InDesign a couple of times, and it always seemed like PageMaker redux. Then, the company I work for now got CS2 (now CS3), and they chose to switch. I've been using InDesign almost exclusively for over a year now, and I have to admit, it now seems a lot easier to use than Quark. I had to use Q7 recently, and I realized what a pain it was to have to go back and forth to the tool palette to draw a text box and then the link tool to flow text into the new box. Plus, being able to double-click on a text box in ID to change to the text (content) tool (or press "T"). Believe me, I wish Quark could keep up with ID - Adobe is becoming the Wal-Mart of design - but it seems like they're getting left in the dust.