The screen background publishing community of interests eagerly awaitedQuarkXPress 7.01 , one of the first major non - Apple political platform to be present in Universal data formatting . Now that this spare update to the non - Universal XPress 7.0 is available , does it deliver on the fellowship ’s “ fast as infernal region ” promise ?
Yes and no .
base on a tonic round of examination , we reason the pursual : It really count which computer you use when running QuarkXPress 7 ; Intel - found XPress 7 users should emphatically update to adaptation 7.01 ; PowerPC users should definitely quell off from this update ; and QuarkXPress 7 is not an undisputed speed demon in any scenario .
We compared the relative speed of three translation of Quark—7.01 , 7.0 , and 6.5 , as well as Adobe InDesign CS2 — on four scheme , a 2.66GHz ( standard configuration ) Mac Pro , a 1.66GHz Intel Core Duo Mac mini , a three-fold 2.7GHz Power Mac G5 , and a 500MHz Power Mac G4 . Overall , the results were assorted and performance gains you get will vary based on the tasks you perform .
No rating change
We did not change the computer mouse rating for the program as a whole , as the rating was mostly based on the programme ’s feature , which have not change with version 7.01 . We did not penalize edition 7.0 for not being Intel native . The original review ( ) note the plan ’s sluggish performance on Intel Macs and the company ’s hope of the forthcoming oecumenical rendering . The Universal QuarkXPress 7.01 , which shipped in August , eliminate the sluggish performance on the Intel weapons platform , but XPress 7.01 is even slower than version 7.0 on Power Macs .
The results
Running XPress 7.01 on Intel Macs distinctly makes sense , especially if you have one of the novel models . On the Mac Pro , XPress 7.01 handily drum XPress 7.0 — nearly doubling its performance on computing - intensive activities such as screen rendering and image manipulation ( as seen in the Launch and Open Document , Replace and Reflow , Apply Irregular Wrap , Apply Transparency , and Import Word File tests ) . It also do modestly better — about 22 percent — than the non - Intel - native XPress 6.5 . But it remains half as fast as the non - aboriginal InDesign CS2 for these procedures . For our two disk - orient trial run ( Create PDF and Import 200 MB TIFF File ) , XPress 7.01 on the Mac Pro outpaces XPress 7.0 by about 54 percent , XPress 6.5 by about 13 percent , and InDesign CS2 by about 28 percentage .
The acceleration on the Mac mini was less impressive : In our tests , XPress 7.01 track down about 30 percent quicker than XPress 7.0 on figuring - intensive project and was observably slower than both XPress 6.5 and InDesign CS2 . For the disk - intensive tests , XPress 7.01 was 30 percent faster than XPress 7.0 , but half the speed of XPress 6.5 . XPress 7.01 on the Mac mini was 50 percent quicker than InDesign CS2 for these tests .
If you do work on a Power Mac , version 7.01 will significantly slow down XPress operations . In our computation - intensive tests on the G5 system , there was about a 31 pct public presentation hit with XPress 7.01 , compared to 7.0 . XPress 6.5 clocked in at about twice as fast as XPress 7.01 , and InDesign CS2 clock in about 3.5 times as tight . An older G4 organization showed a 27 percent score with XPress 7.01 compared to 7.0 , while XPress 6.5 persist 3.3 times as fast as 7.01 , and InDesign CS2 ran 4.3 times as tight as 7.01 . In the disc - intensive psychometric test on the PowerPC arrangement , we also saw significant slowdown in XPress 7.01 , though they were not as dramatic as in the computation - intensive tests . On the G5 , XPress 7.01 took about a 36 percentage hit compared to rendering 7.0 , and a 65 percent hit compared to version 6.5 . Compared to InDesign CS2 , it occupy a 54 percent score . On the G4 , the slowdown was significant but less striking : XPress 7.01 take in an 18 per centum hit versus 7.0 , and ran at about 40 percent of the speed of 6.5 . Compared to InDesign CS , it was about one-half as fast .
Quark’s response
Quark acknowledges that XPress 7.01 runs more slowly on PowerPC systems than version 7.0 does . Senior Product Marketing Manager Marc Horne recommends that PowerPC substance abuser stick with rendering 7.0 , since the functionality is very . If you ’ve already instal 7.01 on your Power Mac , he recommend that you reinstall adaptation 7.0 ( that wo n’t enumerate against your limit on instal permission ) . Horne says that the reason for the PowerPC slowdown is that Quark is using a new compiler puppet to generate its software and that its locomotive engineer have n’t yet gained the experience to optimise performance using the new tool . He says that as Quark ’s developers bring in more experience with the compiler tool , they ’ll be able to better optimise the codification , and they will include that improved codification with the update and hemipterous insect fixes that Quark takings in the future . Horne says this should narrow the carrying into action gap between the PowerPC and Intel versions over sentence .
As to why the carrying out hike up on Intel Macs ( and the corresponding drop curtain on PowerPC ) varies on different Mac role model , Horne ascribe that to good data buses , graphics locomotive , and other motherboard element on newer Macs . He point out that such new components aid some operations , specially since the compilers used to engender the merchant marine software are typically optimized for the modish hardware . old ironware tends to get less attention by the prick developer , so specific mathematical function do n’t get the tweaks needed to turn tail at their good velocity .
Testing methodology
The trial we used for QuarkXPress 7.0 are variations of mental testing that Macworld has used in the publication arena for about 15 old age . The seven tests typify dissimilar aspects distinctive of publishing software package .
Five tests are computationally intensive , stressing the Macs ’ chip , remembering , and graphics subsystem and the code that interacts with them . For example , our Replace and Reflow ( a find and replace of both text edition and formatting throughout a papers ) , Apply Irregular Wrap ( wrapping three columns of text around a five - peak maven ) , and Import Word File tests pore on exchange ingredient through a papers , call for the program to rebuild the entire layout and then update the onscreen introduction . Our Apply Transparency test ask significant computation over the billion of pixels in our 200 megabyte TIFF double , examine how efficient the software system is in handling such calculations . While influenced by the Mac ’s rudimentary disk speed , our Launch and heart-to-heart tryout mainly examines the software ’s power to define itself up in system memory , apply global penchant , and build the initial demonstration of a layout — it ’s a wad like what a car ’s engine - check mark process does when you twist the ignition Florida key .
The other two tests — make PDF and Import 200 megabit TIFF — primarily test how the software wreak with the Mac ’s storage systems . While there are some computations involve ( to sire the PDF code from the layout and to rede the TIFF Indian file ’s bits for display ) , the bulk of the effort is to gauge how well the software interact with the single file scheme .
To calculate our overall execution scores , we average the results of the test , give each test identical weighting . Thus , in the disk - intensive tests , each of the two test reckon for half the account . In the overall test , each of the seven trial numeration for one - one-seventh of the musical score . We average out the comparative functioning , not the number of seconds , for each trial run . Thus , if one disk - intensive test shows XPress 7.01 is 150 percent as tight as XPress 7.0 and the other shows it to be 110 percent as fast , the result is an overall score that XPress 7.01 is 130 percentage as fast as 7.0 on that particular Mac . Because we have two disk - intensive tests and five computation - intensive tests , the computation - intensive tests account for roughly 71 percent of the overall score — reflecting the fact that designers tend to solve on their layouts ’ design and contents much more than they import and exportation file from them .
We get together with Quark on tweaking our original tests for interlingual rendition 7.01 . Quark had think that some of our tests — spell a 200 MiB fuss file , wrapping text around a five - full point star cover on a three - column textbook Sir Frederick Handley Page , and applying transparence to that large TIFF data file — are extreme and unrepresentative . However , we do n’t trust that to be the causa . Our trial run files are not especially complex , and are similar to a typical newssheet , so that we can accurately procreate them across a range of a function of product and versions . Moreover , as with all computer software reviews , it ’s important stretch the software to test their capability . Quark enjoin it will publish its own tryout , which we ’ll tie to when they become available .
Publishing Speed Tests
All time in second . Best results inred . trial run conducted three times each , timed to 0.01 seconds , with averages rounded to 0.1 seconds . * characteristic not supported in QuarkXPress 6.5 .
Test PlatformsIntel : Mac Pro ( 2.66GHz , received configuration ) , 1 GB RAM , 233 GB driving force , Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.6 . Intel : Mac mini 1.66GHz Core Duo , 2 GB RAM , 74.5 GB drive , Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.6 . PowerPC : Power Mac G5 Dual 2.7GHz , 1 GB RAM , 233 GB hard drive , Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.6 . PowerPC : Power Mac G4 500MHz , 1.5 GB RAM , 115 GB punishing drive , Mac OS X Tiger 10.4.6 . Software : QuarkXPress 6.52 ( PowerPC ) , QuarkXPress 7.0 ( PowerPC ) , QuarkXPress 7.01 ( Intel ) , InDesign CS2 4.0.2 ( PowerPC )
The bottom line
The Universal QuarkXPress 7.01 build up for much of the slowdown in version 7.0 on Intel Macs . The speedup on the Mac Pro is much gamy than on the Mac mini , so drug user of the belated Macs will see the best performance . Compared to non - native XPress 6.5 , XPress 7.01 is 19 percent quicker on the Mac Pro but 38 percent slower on the Mac mini . On the two Intel Macs , XPress 7.01 is slower than InDesign CS2 , by about 30 to 40 percent . XPress 7.01 is about 30 percent slower than adaptation 7.0 on PowerPC Macs . As a share , the slowdown is slightly high on a Power Mac G4 ( 32 per centum ) compared to a Power Mac G5 ( 30 percent ) . In all run , XPress 7.01 is tiresome than XPress 6.5 and InDesign CS2 — running at just a 5th to a one-half the speed of the others .
[ FormerMacworldeditorGalen Grumanhas coauthored more than a XII books on QuarkXPress , PageMaker , and InDesign . ]
