Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!o.gp.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!pv0b+ From: pv0b+@andrew.cmu.edu (Pomona Anupol Valero) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: Warning: Quark XPress OBNOXIOUS install proc Message-ID: Date: 8 Jun 91 02:54:40 GMT References: <1991Jun5.175605.12136@macc.wisc.edu> Organization: Class of '91, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 19 In-Reply-To: <1991Jun5.175605.12136@macc.wisc.edu> i agree with eric douglas, "you can't blame a company for trying to protect its software." and don't knock a software package because of some minor marketing scheme and their method of copy-protection. in the long run, you'll be saving more time and headaches if you utilize quark's features over pagemaker's. i use both packages quite extensively, the carnegie mellon supports pagemaker as a mac layout program and at one of my off-campus jobs, we primarily use quark. and there have been many times i've wished that the university owned at least *one* copy of quark...i have been forced to compromise all too often because of pagemaker. give quark another chance and see what happens. //pomona valero Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pensylvannia