Quark 4.1 and Mac OS 9.2 1

[Neilburg]

We have recently upgrade a couple of our Macs to the new G4 mirror door models. Because of some warnings that Quark 4 doesn't run well in Classic mode we have been using Quark 4.1 on the Mac OS 9.2, avoiding OS X altogether. We work on our files across a network to a Mac File Server.

However we have run into several situations in the last week where the images were not staying connected with the job. The images would print poorly. The only solution was to move the job completely to the hard drive of the designer. The problems disappeared when the files were housed on their local hard drive rather than on the File Server.

While we wait for QuarkXpress to come out with Quark 6 (some Quark people at MacWorld promised within 6 months! and we don't want to spend money on 5 for just a few weeks), we are planning to stay in OS 9.2 and run 4.1 directly off of our local hard drives.

Has anyone had a similar experience?

 

[techleo]

We all know that Quark is not designed to support the network environment, therefore, there is no point in accessing the files across the network.

Hope QXP 6 will resolve all these issues.

 

[NoSoTech]

NeiBurg,

Xinet's FullPress will do the job if you interesting to house your Hi-Res files on the File Server..

http://www.xinet.com

 

[GeorgeMack]

1) Suggest you move up to QXP 4.11 -- there were some bug fixes in there. Maybe not directly related to your problem, but I did find it a lot more stable than plain 4.1

2) General "good practice" with Quark and other apps that place files is to leave the images on the server, work on a local copy, then replace the copy on the server when through.
a) If nothing else, you have a "last stage" to fall back on, and a local if the server goes down.
b)You also have a speed advantage, in that you don't have to ship everything back and forth over the network until you close the doc and clean up.
c) And noone else to try to open the same document while you're working on it (though you could have someone independently trying to "fix" another copy of the same file...)