PDA

View Full Version : Quark vs Indesign




CathC
Feb 28, 2006, 04:12 AM
Hello there: It seems everyone is swearing by In Design these days. I know the switch has to be made, but after using Quark for so long (on an LC way back when!), I am really resistant. For one thing, I have a real problem with all those windows! I like a clean screen; even in Photoshop and Illustrator it drives me crazy. Also, I do mostly textbooks, while most of the InDesign believers I've read seem to be graphic artists dealing in brochures, magazine ads, etc. How well does In Design handle large multipage files with many different elements? Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.



mcadam
Feb 28, 2006, 08:02 AM
While I'm far from being a graphics pro (I'm an architect) I've been using InDesign a lot lately for little booklets of up to 20 pages. And for me it simply rocks. I thought it was great at handling text.

And adressing your issue w. lots of little windows and toolbars - press tab in any adobe application and they all vanish, leaving you with just the document and your keyboard-shortcuts. Tab again and they come back. I like that feature.

My, erhm, one cent...

A

tobefirst
Feb 28, 2006, 08:15 AM
With specific regards to your last question, I recently finished up a directory of physicians for the hospital I work for. 106 page book, with many different styles and elements. InDesign handled it with flying colors. I got kudos from my client on how efficient the process was, and how well everything went and how well it turned out.

You're very right in saying that InDesign is menu heavy. This does take getting used to, but I've found that, not only have I grown accustomed to it, I actually prefer it to the just-as-prevalent pop-up boxes in Quark. Also, it helps if you dock all the palettes to the left and right edge of the screen, where they can "hide" when not in use.

One of the things I love most? The shortcut keys for the tools. If Quark has the ability to switch tools without going to the palette, they sure haven't made it obvious how to do so.

mac.FINN
Feb 28, 2006, 08:26 AM
It's always good to know both...

I was still in school right in the middle of the transition from Quark to InDesign so I was lucky to be taught both programs; and if you know Quark, InDesign is a breeze to learn. I was actually against InDesign at first, but now I find myself using in more. Mostly because I do find it more efficient (and up to date) but also because of the fluidity with which it integrates other adobe programs (I know I know Monopoly Bad! but damn you Adobe stop making such good software!).

Plus, Indesign has some great plugins and add-ons (InBooklet SE!) that make my life much easier.

But - back to my main point - If you're a proQuark kinda guy (like I was) learn InDesign, but keep using Quark a lot of places still use it and swear buy it. It's a great skill to have.

CathC
Feb 28, 2006, 10:39 PM
Thanks all for the input. I've played with ID a few times (do have CS), and actually received a project from a client, which someone else did in ID, that she wanted me to "fix up." I wound up redoing the whole thing in Quark. Everyone keeps saying how great ID is, and I just can't seem to warm up to it. I actually come from "traditional" typesetting (no, I won't give my age!), and hate having to go to the mouse for anything; in Quark I use the keyboard probably 95% of the time. I also use even measurements (always picas/points; NEVER inches!) and math for precision placement; don't go "by eye." I realize it's possible to do these things in ID, it's just that I'm so comfortable in Quark, I go to ID and feel lost. I do intend to tackle it, though. So many people can't be wrong. Thanks again.

CathC
Feb 28, 2006, 10:45 PM
One of the things I love most? The shortcut keys for the tools. If Quark has the ability to switch tools without going to the palette, they sure haven't made it obvious how to do so.

FYI: Shift F8 toggles the item and content tool in Quark (use it all the time!)

dornoforpyros
Feb 28, 2006, 10:57 PM
indesign beats quark like a rented mule

hofnar
Feb 28, 2006, 11:33 PM
At my Old Uni all we used was quark and only quark. Now here they use inDesign. I like indesign a bit more, I find some things to be a bit easier. But that may just be that I did harder things in Quark than I have in in Design.

dogbone
Mar 1, 2006, 12:54 AM
I am only a lightweight user at the moment and I've been using ID for a few months now and I have gotten to like it a lot compared to quark.

The plethora of palettes is a bit odd. They even have a palette called 'Story' that only contains a single checkbox! What's that all about then.

chaosbunny
Mar 1, 2006, 01:32 AM
InDesign all the way. You will not regret the switch, just do one project in InDesign. While I understand there are pros and cons to each program InDesign will win in the long run because of a single fact: IT IS WAAAYYYY CHEAPER! Who buys XPress for 2000 € when he can get the whole Creative Suite for 1700 €?:rolleyes:

Leareth
Mar 1, 2006, 02:31 AM
While I agree with the above posters that InDesign in much easier to use and more up to date, Quark is still better at handling books. I know that the Master Theseses and Phd Dissertations at my school are done in Quark while all the other stuff is done in ID. As well the local book printers/publishers use mainly Quark.
I have both, and depending on the project I switch to one or the other, though leaning towards ID as time goes by.

rjphoto
Mar 1, 2006, 08:55 AM
I'm not a designer by any means, I'm a photographer.

Years ago I made an effort to learn the design software (Quark & Pagemaker) so that I would know what was going on with my images when I handed them over to a graphic artist and they would not be printed correctly.

Next thing I know one of my artist friends was asking me to help him with some simple layouts when he was swamped. This progressed to bigger and better jobs for us as a tag team. He did the layouts I did the photography and scans and image management. We both handled output and printing.

He took a university job, I took an I/S job (I'm now back in photo & video).

Fast forward to last summer, my Quark machine (8500 PM w/G3) was acting goofy. Deadlines loomed. It was easier & cheaper to switch to ID (AAAHHHGGG - on a PC) than update from Quark 4 (the 8500 was too slow and hardrives were full). ID opened my old Quark files with no problems and I had very few problems with the learning curve. I use PhotoShop alot and the ID interface is close enough that it was easy.

Now that I have a decent Mac to work with, I'll be updating the old PhotoShop 7 to CS2 or 3 if it comes out before this summer.

Now that Quark is updating their software the waters are going to be muddied up again, but not for me. I'm staying with InDesign.

lurcher
Mar 1, 2006, 09:56 AM
I 'grew up' in the industry using Quark 3-4 and it was a good app, but now its just too dated. I switched to ID when I moved to OSX mainly because it was OSX native and I got the whole CS package for less than Quark on its own!

It took a while to get proficient with it to a level where I can now work much faster. One of the reasons is the way ID integrates with the other Adobe apps. This can save a load of time. I mainly do brochures so can't comment on huge text based docs, but I give it the thumbs up anyway.

Quark 7 will be interesting when it comes out, but by then Adobe will have made more improvements to ID anyways, and I'm never gonna fork out nearly a grand for any app :eek:

Blue Velvet
Mar 5, 2006, 11:16 AM
How well does In Design handle large multipage files with many different elements?



Superbly.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear. As well as spending a lot of time with the Quark 7 beta, I've been using Quark exclusively for page layout for the last 8-9 years, particularly for publications, and until recently swore by Xpress 6.5 as the tool for any designer worth their salt... until now.

We've been dabbling with InDesign for the past couple of months as time permits but last week, I went on an intensive full-time Adobe-certified 3-day InDesign CS2 course aimed particularly at those transitioning from Xpress.

To consolidate what I've learnt, I've also spent most of this weekend doing some freelance work in InDesign CS1 and it's lead me to this conclusion:

This is the future of page layout software. Anyone sticking solely with Quark for the next 2-3 years will be as useful as someone who only knows PageMaker today.

Let's put the eye-candy of drop-shadows and transparency to one side for a monent to consider the real tools for anyone involved in a publication:

Laughably superior table tool, beautiful type with paragraph composer, full open-type support, nested style-sheets with 'next' style, object styles, floating anchored objects, align with spine, story editor, dynamic-link updating... I could go on. Guides that work, locked items that stay locked, superior PDF handling, integral bleed and slug set-up...

Don't spend another penny on Quark unless you expect external collaborators to be sending you Xpress 7 files. Take that money and buy Creative Suite 3 when it's released and spend some of it on decent training and books. Not local college courses but Adobe-certified training — I swear you will not regret it.

Spend an evening relearning your favorite keyboard shortcuts. But also enjoy drag-and-drop native file support from Version Cue without 1-bit clipping paths... within a couple of hours worth of structured training you'll be laughing at the sheer lameness of Quark and you'll also be wondering why you held out for so long... as I'm doing this week.

Good luck. :)

Sam/B
Mar 5, 2006, 12:39 PM
This is a good link for making the transition easier, only the first 3 groups are free mind but luckily it's all the basic stuff and their only a minute or two long at most:

http://www.vtc.com/products/indesigncs.htm

Tempted myself to pay and get the rest

stevep
Mar 5, 2006, 02:48 PM
... within a couple of hours worth of structured training you'll be laughing at the sheer lameness of Quark and you'll also be wondering why you held out for so long... as I'm doing this week. :)
Interesting. I'd picked up from many of your previous posts that you were a long-time Quark user BV, so I guess it's quite an endorsement that you have such a strong recommendation for ID now. Does your transition to ID have repercussions in terms of people outside your organisation that you work with?

Sam/B
Mar 5, 2006, 03:54 PM
I am only a lightweight user at the moment and I've been using ID for a few months now and I have gotten to like it a lot compared to quark.

The plethora of palettes is a bit odd. They even have a palette called 'Story' that only contains a single checkbox! What's that all about then.

I just found out what that story box does here - http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?13@784.5eN2fZRn5pE.18@.3bbecd61/2

Pretty usefull tool now that I know what it does.

oh yeh forgot that you need a username to view the InDesign boards, this is what it does:

http://img424.imageshack.us/img424/3580/quote16zq.gif

See how the quotation marks hang behind where the rest of the text lines up on the vertical axis, it does that with all punctuation.

That's what mine looked like without it checked:
http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/9923/26uy.jpg

Still a bit strange all by itself though aint it

dpaanlka
Mar 5, 2006, 08:57 PM
I've seen Quark 7 in action. It's sweet.

I still don't like InDesign.

Synapple
Mar 8, 2006, 11:39 AM
I've seen Quark 7 in action. It's sweet.


Could you elaborate this a little?

I am very interested in some feedback on Quark 7 :)

JasonElise1983
Mar 8, 2006, 01:10 PM
I've used Quark 4, 5, and 6, and i've also used Indesign 2, CS, and CS2. As a graphic designer, nothing compares to the way InDesign works with the other Adobe Apps. I like the ability to copy a logo done in illustrator, and paste in into InDesign. This way it preserves the paths in indesign so you can change the color from there without having to open it back up in Illustrator. I like how CS2 allows you to pick which layers you want to use on multi-layer PSDs for quick changes without having to open the PSD back up and save copies to print them out and see them side by side. I like the fact that the keyboard shortcuts are PRETTY MUCH the same throughout all Adobe apps. Quark seems outdated, with few great features. Indesign has lots of great features (transparancy, drop shadows, layers, etc...) that really make it a lot easier to use. I also like the interface of InDesign better. To make a long story short, I dred he few times i have to go do something in Quark...i just don't like it.

MongoTheGeek
Mar 8, 2006, 01:43 PM
My experience has been mixed. InDesign is a big step up in a lot of ways and has some tools to make beautiful text easy. The optical margin alignment and multiline justification save a lot of work. I don't know if Quark has implemented them yet.

Quark for a long time was infamous for not caring about the consumer. They outsourced to India and tech support improved! Their licensing is abysmal.

On the other hand Adobe has been becoming the same of late as well. Their products and willfully incompatible so there is the upgrade tax because you have to interoperate with everyone who picked this year to come up to date.

Quark has better applescript support and seems to handle importing formatted text better. InDesign is very picky about what it likes and what it doesn't.

They both suck. Quark feels more like a page layout program though and InDesign feels like well... Illustrator.

I am about *this* close to just writing my own.

JasonElise1983
Mar 8, 2006, 04:06 PM
I am about *this* close to just writing my own.

GET SCRIBUS!!!!!!!

MongoTheGeek
Mar 9, 2006, 08:06 AM
GET SCRIBUS!!!!!!!

Can i run it without an interface?

JasonElise1983
Mar 9, 2006, 11:20 AM
It's open source, so i guess you can do what you please with it...

http://www.scribus.org.uk/

if you are a designer, you should also try out

http://www.inkscape.org/

http://www.gimp.org

dpaanlka
Mar 9, 2006, 11:56 AM
InDesign also feels slow on older machines.

Once Quark loads, its super fast. I like that. Especially the Q7 preview or beta or whatever it's called. Someone on campus has it and I played around with it for a little while.

I think Quark realized it has made some massive mistakes in the late 90s / early 2000s, and are going to really put a 110% effort into Quark 7.

I do like InDesign's friendliness to other Apps, but I'm starting to dislike Adobe lately for their massive attitude about everything. Like "we're number one, so we can do whatever we want and everybody has to listen." It's starting to feel more and more like a monopoly in the graphics and design area every day.

Adobe is fully capeable (spelling?) of making crap software as well. Anyone *remember* Adobe Premiere for Macintosh? Yeah...

dpaanlka
Mar 9, 2006, 12:00 PM
...continuing my previous thought...

It also seems that Adobe in recent years has put Windows at a higher priority level than Macintosh.

Quark on the other hand, feels like the exact opposite.

That's just the feeling I get, not a fact.

Blue Velvet
Mar 9, 2006, 01:00 PM
Interesting. I'd picked up from many of your previous posts that you were a long-time Quark user BV, so I guess it's quite an endorsement that you have such a strong recommendation for ID now. Does your transition to ID have repercussions in terms of people outside your organisation that you work with?


My endorsement is qualified.

I've been spending a lot more time with it over the past few days including one project where I threw everything including the kitchen sink at it.

I absolutely detest the way it handles editable objects on pages based on master pages and can I get a reliable and flight-checkable PDF from a bells and whistles multi-paged, layered and transparency-riddled document? Can I heck.

And yes, that's as an export and as postscript through Distiller.

If and when we pick up InDesign next year (CS3), that's exactly what we'll be doing — not dropping Quark. We'll still need to keep Quark around for at least another 5 years to handle legacy files and work done by external suppliers.

But when the time comes where InDesign becomes our bread and butter app, we'll do a short digital run of a postcard or flyer and send it out to all our printers, typesetters, and freelancers letting them know what we're up to.

rjphoto
Mar 9, 2006, 02:42 PM
If and when we pick up InDesign next year (CS3), that's exactly what we'll be doing — not dropping Quark. We'll still need to keep Quark around for at least another 5 years to handle legacy files and work done by external suppliers.


Have you tried the import feature of InDesign?

I used it for a roster poster I do every summer and was very pleased with the import. I had to adjust a text box attached to the photos but that took about 5 minutes to complete them all. From there I just was able to make the changes with no issues. My production time was cut in half from Quark 4.5 the year before.

Blue Velvet
Mar 9, 2006, 02:49 PM
Have you tried the import feature of InDesign?

InDesign only imports Quark v4 and lower files, not 5 & 6 as Quark helpfully started adding a level of encryption to their files for newer versions.

There is a newish Markzware 'Quark to Indesign' plug-in for InDesign but nothing is perfect.

http://www.markzware.com/q2id/

rjphoto
Mar 9, 2006, 02:58 PM
InDesign only imports Quark v4 and lower files, not 5 & 6 as Quark helpfully started adding a level of encryption to their files for newer versions.

There is a newish Markzware 'Quark to Indesign' plug-in for InDesign but nothing is perfect.

http://www.markzware.com/q2id/

Now that you mention that, I remember that being an issue for someone else I was talking to about switching to ID. It wasn't a problem for me. (I think it was 4.5.)

Hopefully that will be the last import I will need to do from Quark.

_bnkr612
Mar 9, 2006, 05:17 PM
If you can produce work that meets the clients/your needs. It doesn't matter if it's InD. or Quark.

I hate Quark though. Will they be around in 5 years? No.

chaosbunny
Mar 10, 2006, 05:22 AM
If you can produce work that meets the clients/your needs. It doesn't matter if it's InD. or Quark.

I hate Quark though. Will they be around in 5 years? No.

Well spoken!

Mass Hysteria
Mar 14, 2006, 09:55 AM
So many people can't be wrong.

You're right – I must switch to windows ;)

wizenPub
Mar 25, 2006, 03:42 PM
Adobe announces Q2 2007 for Universal Binary CS3. Quark 8 and Apple apps will already be dancing circles around all Adobe apps. They're wasting so much effort on Flash integration now...you Adobephiles are in for a rough ride...Adobe's the lost cause at this point....they are trying to catch up with color-based transparency, job jackets, collaboration zones and so much more and while Adobe worries about wringing moula from PDF format, the world is moving to OPEN standards so PDF will be gone as fast as Zip disks in a few years...writing's on the wall.

hikingnclimbing
Mar 25, 2006, 05:09 PM
Hello there: It seems everyone is swearing by In Design these days. I know the switch has to be made, but after using Quark for so long (on an LC way back when!), I am really resistant. For one thing, I have a real problem with all those windows! I like a clean screen; even in Photoshop and Illustrator it drives me crazy. Also, I do mostly textbooks, while most of the InDesign believers I've read seem to be graphic artists dealing in brochures, magazine ads, etc. How well does In Design handle large multipage files with many different elements? Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

I used ID to produce a 240 page yearbook. Is that big enough for you? I'm sure you've seen a yearbook or two in your life. So you know the kind of elements that we work with. I've never used Quark, but ID, once you work with it, is pretty sweet.

HiRez
Mar 26, 2006, 07:27 AM
I love InDesign but a slightly offtopic question about it here: why is there no way to apply small caps to the first line of an article (a style)? This is a pretty common thing to see in books and magazines of all types, but I can find no way of doing it automatically in InDesign. Using nested styles I can apply a character style to the first three words or whatever, but "lines" is not one of the choices.

wizenPub
Mar 26, 2006, 04:31 PM
...with a little illustrator thrown in. I'd love to see a race where a team of 5 people was given a big job and see who got it done fastest...the CS2 crowd or the Quark 7 crowd (with Photoshop 7)...I'd bet the Quark crowd would be done way before the ID crowd. It's pathetic how much money companies are loosing to the hype. :eek:

SwiftLives
Mar 26, 2006, 09:28 PM
...with a little illustrator thrown in. I'd love to see a race where a team of 5 people was given a big job and see who got it done fastest...the CS2 crowd or the Quark 7 crowd (with Photoshop 7)...I'd bet the Quark crowd would be done way before the ID crowd. It's pathetic how much money companies are loosing to the hype. :eek:

I'm curious - what do you consider a "big job"? Why would Quark users finish before ID users? It seems to me that speed is mostly based upon one's familiarity with a program and not the program itself.

You'll have to forgive my cynicism, but I'm not too eager to give Quark another chance any time soon. I think you'll find that after a decade of putting up with Quark's lack of innovation and basic contempt for their customer base, people aren't going to be terribly forgiving toward Quark -- no matter how much better you claim their program is.

I will say that I'm glad to see Quark innovating again. Quark 6 looked and felt like Quark 4 running in classic on OS X. With Quark 7, It looks to me as though Quark has finally decided to start making their program worthwhile again.

Unfortunately, looking over the new features in Quark 7, I don't see many useful features that aren't already available to me in CS2.

jefhatfield
Mar 26, 2006, 09:40 PM
Hello there: It seems everyone is swearing by In Design these days. I know the switch has to be made, but after using Quark for so long (on an LC way back when!), I am really resistant. For one thing, I have a real problem with all those windows! I like a clean screen; even in Photoshop and Illustrator it drives me crazy. Also, I do mostly textbooks, while most of the InDesign believers I've read seem to be graphic artists dealing in brochures, magazine ads, etc. How well does In Design handle large multipage files with many different elements? Any advice or encouragement would be appreciated.

you sound like you are more used to quark, that's all...it's easy from the perspective of a newbie like me who can, as a computer technician, see two programs side by side, but not have the bias of being a professional worker/artist in one program or the other

indesign is easier/cleaner

it's kind of like appleworks to me...which was about the same time i saw microsoft office...i thought appleworks was easier to use and more logically laid out, but i knew the less elegant microsoft office was the standard of the industry

quark has been, and still may be (especially in post production) the standard of the industry, but it seems easier and more logical for people to use photoshop, illustrator and indesign as opposed to photoshop, illustrator, and quark

my two cents, as a non designer

G.Kirby
Mar 27, 2006, 05:38 PM
Hello. My name is Gavin, and I’m a Quark user. (circle of people answer “Hello Gavin”).

I lecture in graphic design and as the course and faculty has grown so has the number of software licences. We currently have 120 seats of Quark 6.5 which equals a very large pile of cash. This summer we will be getting our 2 main Mac suites refitted with Intel iMac’s. What software to get could well cause fisty-cuffs. We will have to get the CS2 suite as CS3 has developed a case of the Longhorn’s or should I say Vista’s. This is not ideal as CS2 and Rosetta are not totally bosom buddies and we will need to shell out for CS3 when it comes out. (I know we will pay education prices but 100 seats will still be around £15K). Have never used ID but will be looking at it.

And now for Quark…..

Quark 6.5 and Rosetta is a bad combo. Quark’s answer ‘Buy Quark 7, it will be universal.’ ‘ No, we have no plans to update v6.5 to fix any bugs’.

And get this……

They will be stopping the upgrade programme on lab-pack’s (guess what 90% of education use) so we will need to buy 120 new FULL licences of Quark 7.

I am SO PISSED at Quark and not for the first time either. Once again the customer care sucks, and they wonder why ID is gaining ground.

Does anyone want to buy 120 licences of Quark 6.5? Anyone? No? Just as well because it is illegal to sell the software on as you don’t own the software you only pay for permission to use it……bastards! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

jefhatfield
Mar 27, 2006, 06:23 PM
Hello. My name is Gavin, and I’m a Quark user. (circle of people answer “Hello Gavin”).

I lecture in graphic design and as the course and faculty has grown so has the number of software licences. We currently have 120 seats of Quark 6.5 which equals a very large pile of cash. This summer we will be getting our 2 main Mac suites refitted with Intel iMac’s. What software to get could well cause fisty-cuffs. We will have to get the CS2 suite as CS3 has developed a case of the Longhorn’s or should I say Vista’s. This is not ideal as CS2 and Rosetta are not totally bosom buddies and we will need to shell out for CS3 when it comes out. (I know we will pay education prices but 100 seats will still be around £15K). Have never used ID but will be looking at it.

And now for Quark…..

Quark 6.5 and Rosetta is a bad combo. Quark’s answer ‘Buy Quark 7, it will be universal.’ ‘ No, we have no plans to update v6.5 to fix any bugs’.

And get this……

They will be stopping the upgrade programme on lab-pack’s (guess what 90% of education use) so we will need to buy 120 new FULL licences of Quark 7.

I am SO PISSED at Quark and not for the first time either. Once again the customer care sucks, and they wonder why ID is gaining ground.

Does anyone want to buy 120 licences of Quark 6.5? Anyone? No? Just as well because it is illegal to sell the software on as you don’t own the software you only pay for permission to use it……bastards! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

wow, that's a lot of dollars, or pounds ;)

i hope as a teacher/professor, you don't have to shell out some of your own hard earned cash for the class like some in the teaching profession in california have done due to either bad educational administration management or bad state funds management...or both

i had a computer repair class i attended where the professor would have to buy spare parts because the the college's administration took so long to ok so much as a paper clip

maestro55
Mar 27, 2006, 09:32 PM
This is an interesting thread, because I asked myself the same question when our yearbook staff went to computers this year. I knew very little about both programs, but of course InDesign CS2 was cheaper for us, and with my PageMaker and PhotoShop background (in my desktop publishing/multimedia class that I took my 10th grade year) we went the ID route. I have loved this program, my only complaint is the cheap Dells we are forced to run it on. I am used to using Adobe in the Mac Lab at school, and using it in the PC lab for the yearbook as been a change.

What I love that Herff Jones has plugins that allow us to work work with templates and graphics and such that they gave us! This is the extent of my work, I have often times thought about going into publishing after being on the yearbook staff for two years and learning a lot about what goes into making our book. This year I was business manager, so I spent more time dealing with people and our money than I did giving my thoughts on how things should be, but I did create my pages and I like my work. I am also the only computer nerd, so as you can imagine I have kept busy showing everyone how to use the program.

But my first point of posting, is that when I asked myself the question, I also asked some others, and I heard that Quark was on its way out. However, the Apple computer teacher teaches Quark during the summers, and he likes it better than InDesign, and says we should have gotten it.

My advice, use what works best for you!

Balin64
Mar 27, 2006, 11:48 PM
Well, I use ID to create and update scripts for the theatre company I work for: and not just text, which it handles excellently by the way, but for mant graphical aspects in other layers meant to aid stage managers in learning the show. I used PageMaker way back in the day, and loved it. Actually, my first layout program was ReadySetGo! way back when I was a kid learning how to make my junior hs newspaper on a Mac Color Classic. I have used Quark, but I have never found it as easy to use. Of course, you always stick with what you learn first, so there you go; at this point, I would say ID definitely takes the prize...

fba199
Mar 31, 2006, 07:49 PM
I started with Quark in my freshmen years of Graphic Design. I liked it but it would keep crashing and had problems printing certain characters. Then I switched to ID, just to give it a little spin and was amazed! Finally, a shortcut to get the hand tool on the fly! I was used to Adobe's shortcuts that it came naturally for me in ID. Was working on a page layout project (which was due a week later) and ported all my content from Quark to InDesign. If you know Quark, you'll easily adjust to InDesign, I caught on to it in about 2 hours.

Also, I hear that printers hate it because it can cause problems.

Blue Velvet
Apr 1, 2006, 08:49 AM
Finally, a shortcut to get the hand tool on the fly!


Quark. Hold down the Alt key.

I'm so weary of people criticising software before they know how to use it.

G.Kirby
Apr 2, 2006, 05:10 AM
Also, I hear that printers hate it because it can cause problems.

Too which software are you referring, Quark or ID? As long as you use the correct file formats for your images (eps or tiff @ 300dpi and in CMYK) and you use proper font sets, Quark works just fine. However, ID has caused problems because it allows you to easily ignore basic print setup rules.

It is hard enough to teach print protocols and then Adobe turn round and say you can use none postscript file formats. People then wonder why their files don’t print.

wmmk
May 6, 2006, 12:13 AM
It's open source, so i guess you can do what you please with it...

http://www.scribus.org.uk/

if you are a designer, you should also try out

http://www.inkscape.org/

http://www.gimp.org

that's my creativve suite, folks!
and i can do what i want!!!!
btw, if you need a pretty interface for GIMP, get seashore, it's like PSE

RacerX
May 6, 2006, 12:48 AM
Personally, I think the worse thing that happen to the industry was everyone standardizing on QuarkXPress.

Not because it was a bad app, but because when any one company has that type of power... the customers end up losing out.

What happened when PageMaker was left to die off and QuarkXPress was the page layout app? Quark abused it's position. They over charged and under delivered. They took steps to punish customers who were not upgrading on Quark's schedule. And if Quark had had any competition at the time I doubt that any of that would have happen.

And we shouldn't forget what killed off PageMaker... it was Adobe.

Adobe felt very left out of the desktop publishing market that it felt it had help create with Postscript. They had considered making their own page layout app, but decided to go shopping instead (seeing as they had a ton of money). They bought FrameMaker, but weren't satisfied. So they bought Aldus too, hoping that PageMaker's old reputation would help. They did virtually nothing to the app after acquiring it... and it died off.*

I think InDesign is a great app. I think QuarkXPress is getting back to being a great app. And even if I liked one more than the other... I really don't want to see either dominate the industry.

We should learn from history here... and not repeat the same mistakes over and over.



* It should be noted that Adobe did not repeat the mistake with PageMaker when it bought GoLive CyberStudio. Adobe quickly started to both improve features and integrate it with other Adobe apps.

gman71882
May 6, 2006, 01:41 AM
InDesign is BY FAR the easisest to USE and Design With!!!
It is Intuitive, works with all the other Adobe Apps VERY Well and Just has more control over the document than ANY VERSION OF QUARK (INCLUDING QUARK 7)

Switching can be hard to do... but well worth it. The Extra abilities you get with the unification between InDesign and Photoshop are limitless As well as the combo of Illustrator and Indesign with drag and Drop combos and Auto updating with Photoshop documents are just So much better.

IF you need any tips feel free to ask: i teach InDesign to new users so im aware of all the new user conundrums!!! Just Make the Switch and it will be worth it!!!

G.Kirby
May 6, 2006, 02:35 AM
I have had reports that several large pubishers that have moved from Quark to Indesign are going back to Quark once v7 is out. It sounds like quark have fixed all of those anoying little problems.

Blue Velvet
May 6, 2006, 03:05 AM
One major drawback to InDesign: it's a major resource hog.

To work fluently with it, I think you need a minimum of a dual 1.4 G4 with plenty of RAM while Quark 4-6 will run smoothly on a 733 G4 such as one of machines we keep spare for the temps at work.

And for those who say that Quark is not intuitive, it seems pretty obvious that you don't know how to use the software.

chaosbunny
May 6, 2006, 05:35 AM
One major drawback to InDesign: it's a major resource hog.

To work fluently with it, I think you need a minimum of a dual 1.4 G4 with plenty of RAM while Quark 4-6 will run smoothly on a 733 G4 such as one of machines we keep spare for the temps at work.

And for those who say that Quark is not intuitive, it seems pretty obvious that you don't know how to use the software.

Ahem, with which version of InDesign are you comparing Quark 4-6 to? InDesign CS 2? You can hardly compare one year old software to three or even 7 years old software spec wise.

And if you say it does not matter that Quark is not intuitive this is what makes it harder for people to learn the software.

Blue Velvet
May 6, 2006, 06:21 AM
Ahem, with which version of InDesign are you comparing Quark 4-6 to? InDesign CS 2? You can hardly compare one year old software to three or even 7 years old software spec wise.

And if you say it does not matter that Quark is not intuitive this is what makes it harder for people to learn the software.


It matters not how old the software is in a production situation. The Guardian newspaper is still running Quark 3.3 for most of its production because it integrates with their custom copydesk-type software and runs well on older machines.

Comparing the latest and most recent version of each of those two packages: CS2 vs Quark 6.5, my argument still hold true. InDesign is a resource hog.

I did not say Quark isn't intuitive. To me the excuse of a piece of software not being intuitive is an inability of the user to understand the interface. To someone coming from Illustrator or Photoshop, they may find Indesign easy to understand but that is not the same thing as an interface being intuitive.

InDesign in its current version with its palette bloat is a far cry from Quark's interface. Regardless of my hatred of Quark and my interest in InDesign, I'm afraid that I'm with Quark's human interface engineers on this one. Page layout is such a specialised task that adapting an interface from a photo-editing/vector piece of software has resulted in an unholy mess.

But let me be clear, I use both apps day in, day out. They both have their strengths and weaknesses and to imply that one is automatically better than the other overall is such a simplistic notion. There are plenty of features that Quark offers that aren't replicated in InDesign but these may not be the type of eye-candy and novelty that attracts new users.

JasonElise1983
May 6, 2006, 10:59 AM
Comparing the latest and most recent version of each of those two packages: CS2 vs Quark 6.5, my argument still hold true. InDesign is a resource hog.




Ok i have to say, i have InDesign CS2, Quark 6.5 and the Quark 7 Beta. InDesign may be a Resource Hog, but over all it performs well and feels snappy (unless the display setting is set to High Resolution), but Quark 6.5 feels slow all the time. It is horribly slow to open and doesn't feel very fast when using it. It's worthless and doesn't integrate as well. Quark 7 Beta runs better than Quark 6.5 does, and it's in Beta! Seriously, name me more than 1 major change made to Quark 6 from 5 or 4 other than OS X running nativley. I can name numerous changes made to InDesign CS2 from InDesign CS, and InDesign CS from InDesign 2. Quark Sucks

Blue Velvet
May 6, 2006, 11:07 AM
Seriously, name me more than 1 major change made to Quark 6 from 5 or 4 other than OS X running nativley.

Over 4? Multiple undos, synchronised layouts, multiple layouts within the same project space, layers, deviceN support... I could go on with the XML features.

Learn about the software you claim to know about.

JasonElise1983
May 6, 2006, 11:30 AM
Sorry, i guess i forget that quark 4 didn't do some of those basic things (multiple undos????) I guess i take them for granted now. Thanks for correcting me, but that still doesn't change the fact that Quark runs like slow and if you ask me, a lot of the features in Quark 6 feel out of place (web design?). I think Quark should spend more time on making at better DTP application then throwing stuff in there people don't need. Or branch out and develop more software that works with quark, not inside of it. Again only my 2¢ and i'm sure i'll be corrected on something again...

Blue Velvet
May 6, 2006, 11:41 AM
...a lot of the features in Quark 6 feel out of place (web design?)

I certainly won't disagree with that. ;)

dpaanlka
May 6, 2006, 02:16 PM
who brought this thread back from the dead

chaosbunny
May 6, 2006, 05:28 PM
Of course it is far more difficult/takes longer to change something software or hardware wise the large the production facility is.

I have to work with Quark at the agency where I'm freelancing but prefer InDesign for my own projects because I also do illustrations quite often and my main tool is actually illustrator. With that background InDesign seems like a natural choice for me. I think the question Quark vs InDesign comes down to each ones personal tastes. Like Blue Velvet has pointed out, there are pros and cons to each of them.

But I think InDesign will win in the long run because of the fact that combined with the creative suite it is way cheaper than Quark and since Adobe and Macromedia joined InDesign simply has a bigger development team and recources I think. Which is, as much as I prefer InDesign, a little sad, cause a more or less monopoly of one company in the print design world can't be that good.

abrooks
Mar 27, 2008, 05:01 PM
Ok it has been asked a million times but I'm looking for clear concise reasons from all aspects of the industry on why one is better than the other.

I don't want any pointless insults or personal insults, so lets keep it clean people.

Round 1 *ding, ding, ding*

mbrellisford
Mar 27, 2008, 11:50 PM
InDesign is the FUTURE! :D

On a serious note, I go to school for Graphic Design and they aren't even teaching Quark. I don't know if Adobe had something to do with this, but if the "future" Graphic Designers only learn InDesign in school, many companies are going to switch. At the current moment I think Quark is the industry standard, however InDesign is close to taking that over.

chaosbunny
Mar 28, 2008, 03:44 AM
Well, both have pros and cons, it depends on the users workflow and work what is more efficient.

In the end there is one MAYOR advantage to InDesign: it comes bundled with the CS suite. You have to get Photoshop and Illustrator etc. anyway, so you get InDesign with it anyway. And spending another 2k $ on Quark for some minor advantages in special situations is a huge leap.

design-is
Mar 28, 2008, 04:42 AM
I'm just entering my 2nd year in the design for print industry. My opinion has become as follows:

Quark is old & reliable. Hanging on by trying to keep up with Adobe. Used by a lot of printers because it was the only viable option for a long time. They don't want to learn new skills or convert their files. Only has a few tools which are more functional than InDesign - i.e. transparency options. This is a good program for quick and dirty workflows. This program is a print layout tool. Interactive designer addon adds some interesting functionality, but it a bit strange.

InDesign - a fully integrated (into CS3) layout program with many more useful tools. My particular favourites include the multiple drag and drop to place images/files onto a layout or into boxes, the choice of handles (http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2162/handlescw8.gif as featured in other CS3 products) on an object that lets you set the location of say the bottom right corner rather than the only option in Quark which is the top right. This program is a layout design tool.

<snip>
At the current moment I think Quark is the industry standard, however InDesign is close to taking that over.

As far as I've seen, Quark is the print industry standard, yet InDesign is the design industry standard.



I unfortunately have to use Quark (print layout tool) in my day job.

I take great joy in using InDesign (layout design tool) on freelance projects.


-EDIT- Also, naturally InDesign's PDF compression ability is far superior to Quark's.

decksnap
Mar 28, 2008, 09:21 AM
-EDIT- Also, naturally InDesign's PDF compression ability is far superior to Quark's.


You don't need to (and shouldn't) use the built in PDF generator in Quark anyway. Export postscripts to make PDFs in Distiller.

design-is
Mar 28, 2008, 09:31 AM
You don't need to (and shouldn't) use the built in PDF generator in Quark anyway. Export postscripts to make PDFs in Distiller.

Exactly what I do in Quark... That was my point :)

IgnatiusTheKing
Mar 29, 2008, 01:23 PM
I haven't used Quark in ages, so I really can't say what deficiencies it has anymore, but the biggest pro for InDesign, in my opinion, is the fact that it comes with and works so well with the other Adobe programs. They are so well-integrated that it's almost as if Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign are one huge program, rather than three distinct ones.

DesignerOnMac
Mar 29, 2008, 07:53 PM
I'm just entering my 2nd year in the design for print industry. My opinion has become as follows:

Quark is old & reliable. Hanging on by trying to keep up with Adobe. Used by a lot of printers because it was the only viable option for a long time. They don't want to learn new skills or convert their files. Only has a few tools which are more functional than InDesign - i.e. transparency options. This is a good program for quick and dirty workflows. This program is a print layout tool. Interactive designer addon adds some interesting functionality, but it a bit strange.

InDesign - a fully integrated (into CS3) layout program with many more useful tools. My particular favourites include the multiple drag and drop to place images/files onto a layout or into boxes, the choice of handles (http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2162/handlescw8.gif as featured in other CS3 products) on an object that lets you set the location of say the bottom right corner rather than the only option in Quark which is the top right. This program is a layout design tool.



As far as I've seen, Quark is the print industry standard, yet InDesign is the design industry standard.



I unfortunately have to use Quark (print layout tool) in my day job.

I take great joy in using InDesign (layout design tool) on freelance projects.


-EDIT- Also, naturally InDesign's PDF compression ability is far superior to Quark's.

Quark used to be the print industry standard. I work with many many printers, and NONE of them take ANY Quark files from me. Several years ago, ID had issues with a printers RIP so they stayed away from ID anything. That has now been taken care of and as I said no printers I deal with now, big or small will take any Quark files.

With ID you have bridge which allows you to search easily any photos you have done in photoshop. Copy and paste, drag and drop work also from Adobe program to Adobe program. ID also has many tools like Photoshop to do gradients, text manipulation such as shadows, emboss, etc. The list is quite endless.

ID is a design and print industry necessity!

decksnap
Mar 29, 2008, 09:24 PM
Quark used to be the print industry standard. I work with many many printers, and NONE of them take ANY Quark files from me. Several years ago, ID had issues with a printers RIP so they stayed away from ID anything. That has now been taken care of and as I said no printers I deal with now, big or small will take any Quark files.

I've never seen a printer that doesn't take Quark files but does take InDesign. Ever.

MechaSpanky
Mar 30, 2008, 09:24 AM
I'm sorry DesignerOnMac, but I have to agree with decksnap. I have been working as a graphic designer for over 17 years and I have never seen a printer that won't take Quark Xpress files. I also have worked in the prepress department at several large publishing houses and all of them preferred Quark Xpress files over InDesign files. More recently, most printers prefer PDF files. They don't really care what program you used to make the PDF's only that you didn't use RGB images. Most of the large design firms that I have worked for and all the printers, prefer Quark Xpress to InDesign.

InDesign does have some nice features but I actually prefer Quark Xpress. Quark feels a little more streamlined than InDesign does. Of course I do like the fact that InDesigns plays so well with the other Adobe products but it really isn't that big of a deal to me. Everyone has their favorite. I do use InDesign when I have to but if the choice is mine to make, I go with Quark. I think it is great that InDesign is doing good because the competition forces Quark to make a better product too. I think in the end the winners are the users.

mbrellisford, as a side note. Your logic about "future graphic designers" only learning InDesign is causing companies to switch from Quark Xpress to InDesign is flawed. Do you think that companies choose their software based on what universities are teaching? No, they use the software that fits into their workflow the best.

InDesign has made some serious inroads into Quark Xpress territory because of two reasons. One, Adobe quit making PageMaker. While PageMaker was a horrible program, many people used it and so Adobe gained tons of InDesign users by default simply because users couldn't get PageMaker anymore and so they just got whatever Adobe was selling. Secondly, Adobe aggressively markets the CS suite which includes InDesign. Every graphic designer uses PhotoShop and Illustrator, so most designers buy the suite and it comes with InDesign. That has helped a lot of people to make the switch.

To answer abrooks question, both InDesign and Quark Xpress are great products. Many people here will tell you that no one uses Quark any more. That is not true. I think a good well rounded designer would take it upon himself to learn them both. Originally I learned how to use PageMaker and Quark Xpress because some of my clients preferred one over the other. Often times you won't get to decide which program to use, your company or your client will decide. I wish you the best of luck.

shecky
Mar 30, 2008, 11:18 AM
I've never seen a printer that doesn't take Quark files but does take InDesign. Ever.

agreed.

i deal with about 6 printers along the eastern seaboard of the USA regularly and they all accept quark files. they also all take indesign. i work in indesign personally, but we do have a version of quark 6 in case something comes along we need to open in quark - this almost never happens.

as far as who is using quark and who is using indesign it is also geographic; i think quark has more of a hold outside the USA (based on comments i have read here and elsewhere.) large publishing houses also tend to keep using quark.

adobe also very aggressively markets to the education sector as well. students/faculty where i teach can get the CS3 master collection for $500, and CS3 Design Premium for $250. because of this you have people learning indesign and then using indesign as the weapon of choice when they get out of school. a lot of current and recent grads over the past 5 years only learn quark on the job or because they got a freelance gig that only uses quark and they are forced to.

SwiftLives
Mar 30, 2008, 03:36 PM
I think what will ultimately kill Quark isn't that they have an inferior program. It will be the lack of a photo editing and vector editing program alongside it.

I haven't used Quark since version 4 (Command+Option+Shift+K anyone?), but I do like to keep up with it from time to time, and I have to say that from what I've read, they've developed Quark into a pretty solid competitor for InDesign - especially with the minimal photo editor that comes built into it. On the flip side, I hear their PDF creation tool is quite bad.

Honestly, the *only* reason I switched from Quark to Indesign was because Quark didn't have an OS X native version of their software ready at the time we upgraded (and I'd heard rotten things about the forthcoming v6). That's not really a viable reason to switch anymore. Also, InDesign came with the Creative Suite we purchased, so it really didn't make sense to purchase additional software.

As I said, the biggest disadvantage Quark has right now is their lack of complementing software. (I'm still a bit surprised they didn't end up with at least Freehand...)

supremedesigner
Mar 30, 2008, 07:14 PM
Cool thing about Quark is... if you don't have Quark installed on your machine, you have the ability to drag n drop the old quark file to Indesign Program =) (only Quark 4 and if you have Quark 5, you gotta downgrade to Quark 4 though).

We need to keep Quark alive so Adobe can compete better. If no Quark, then Adobe can make InDD sloppy as hell! Trust me on this........

For instance but different reason: HD-DVD is dead and now Sony raised the BD price higher :P

SwiftLives
Mar 30, 2008, 09:04 PM
Cool thing about Quark is... if you don't have Quark installed on your machine, you have the ability to drag n drop the old quark file to Indesign Program =) (only Quark 4 and if you have Quark 5, you gotta downgrade to Quark 4 though).

We need to keep Quark alive so Adobe can compete better. If no Quark, then Adobe can make InDD sloppy as hell! Trust me on this........

For instance but different reason: HD-DVD is dead and now Sony raised the BD price higher :P

I do have a mild fear that if Quark ever went away, Adobe would begin treating their customers like Quark did 10 years ago...

jerryrock
Mar 30, 2008, 09:35 PM
I think what will ultimately kill Quark isn't that they have an inferior program. It will be the lack of a photo editing and vector editing program alongside it.

I don't quite know what you mean here. Quark version 7 edits linked photos using Photoshop just as InDesign does. Both programs have vector drawing tools.

chaosbunny
Mar 31, 2008, 06:02 AM
I do have a mild fear that if Quark ever went away, Adobe would begin treating their customers like Quark did 10 years ago...

Looking at the CS3 activation bs they are not too far away... :(

palmerized
Mar 31, 2008, 07:13 AM
I would agree that one major point is that InDesign comes with CS3, so you're buying Photoshop and Illustrator anyway, so ID is included.

There is also excellent integration with the other Adobe apps -- drag and drop support -- and you can import native PSD files. Combine this with Adobe Bridge and you have a seamless workflow.

In terms of printers taking Quark or InDesign, both programs can export to PDF or Postscript, with all printers can take, so that's not really an issue.

For new users, ID is very similar in function to Photoshop/Illustrator, so the learning curve is relatively small in comparison.

design-is
Mar 31, 2008, 07:41 AM
I don't quite know what you mean here. Quark version 7 edits linked photos using Photoshop just as InDesign does. Both programs have vector drawing tools.

I think he means that there is a basic image editing panel in Quark:

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/8715/piceffectshe1.gif

Whereas InDesign lets Photoshop do most of the work as it should. As most people who use Quark will use/have Photoshop anyway it makes this feature less important. InDesign does however have the same layer effects (multiply/overlay etc) as Photoshop available to apply to its objects, which can prove very useful.


One reason I started using InDesign against the wish of my employer was the need to design full size artwork for banner displays. Quark has a ridiculous size limit on is layouts, which means you have to make things half size and print at 200% or worse. InDesign, and other Adobe products don't set stupid limits.

Same goes for undo functionality - Quark sets a limit of 30 (I think) whereas Adobe runs until your ram runs out pretty much (or so I have read and experienced)(numbers not certain, so don't have a go at me for inaccuracies please)

As for vector capability, both have it, its just that InDesign implements the advanced pen method that Illustrator uses and Quark has a far inferior (but will do the job for most things) version.

decksnap
Mar 31, 2008, 07:50 AM
Looking at the CS3 activation bs they are not too far away... :(

What is the CS3 activation bs?

I haven't run into it yet... but you've got me wondering.

chaosbunny
Mar 31, 2008, 02:24 PM
What is the CS3 activation bs?

I haven't run into it yet... but you've got me wondering.

Well, with CS2 you register and that's it. Not so with CS3. The system now somehow remembers that you have send and activated your copy 2 times (say on a laptop and a desktop) as it is allowed. If you buy a new computer and want to run it there you have to deactivate one of the 2 installs first.

So while this generally is no big deal, what if your laptop is stolen and you can't deactivate it? What if your computers hard drive crashes and you can't deactivate? What if you have to reinstall your system and you forget to deactivate, or can't do so anymore?

You have to call Adobe, wait on their hotline until anybody shows up, and hope that they are kind enough to believe your story.

And any of the above szenarios is one where every professional has a more or less big problem anyway, and time is important. In such an extremely frustrating situation I'm sure it's great fun to have to deal with Adobe tech support.

I understand that they want to prevent their products from being pirated, but please not at the cost of the paying customer.

What's next? You only can use CS4 when you are connected to the internet?

Sorry for the rant. :o

MacsAttack
Mar 31, 2008, 03:58 PM
Ok it has been asked a million times but I'm looking for clear concise reasons from all aspects of the industry on why one is better than the other.

I don't want any pointless insults or personal insults, so lets keep it clean people.

Round 1 *ding, ding, ding*

I think the best case I've seen for InDesign over Quark was presented in The InDesigner PodCasts. The examples of where significant savings in time and frustration in your workflow can be made over doing it "the Quark way" are quite convincing. I'm sure there must be something Quark does better than InDesign, but Adobe have been adding significant improvements and features to InDesign while Quark looks like it is almost standing still. If they don't do something soon CS4 could bury Quark (if Adobe don't screw up). Which would be a shame. Competition is good (for us).

And then there is the fact that the entire CS3 Creative suite (which many probably are going to buy to get PhotoShop and Illustrator anyway) costs less then Quark and comes with InDesign.

pcypert
Mar 31, 2008, 10:18 PM
For me it was purely convenience. I was starting right as Indesign became Indesign and they started the CS suite. Had it been sooner and I learned on Quark, maybe I'd still be Quark.

I have run into print shops here in Thailand that don't accept Quark files. Not all, but there are some. They love their adobe files over here for some reason.

Paul

AlexisV
Apr 8, 2008, 09:57 AM
I used Quark at college, university and now in work. It's simple to use and fast in creating projects. 7 is far superior to 6.5 and there are some nice new features. The interface is a bit old fashioned though and just redesigning the icons to bring them up to date would be nice (minor I know, but Q7 still looks like Q4).

There are some missing features though - I would kill for an alignment/pathfinder palette as seen in Illustrator.

Quark 8 isn't too far away though. They're hurrying up the releases now and I suspect Quark 7's job was purely to prove they were still in the game. Quark 8 needs to make some big progress though and bring the program into 2008.

IgnatiusTheKing
Apr 8, 2008, 10:48 AM
I think the bottom line is that competition is good for the industry and designers in general, but InDesign will continue to gain market share as long as Adobe continues to make and improve their excellent software.

I don't see Quark going away anytime soon, though.

MechaSpanky
Apr 8, 2008, 10:49 AM
AlexisV,

I agree with you, Quark Xpress 7 has quite a few nice and long awaited features. Quark Xpress 7 has been a great upgrade for me. It has been stable and pretty speedy too.

You said, "There are some missing features though - I would kill for an alignment/pathfinder palette as seen in Illustrator."

Quark 7 already has an Align and Distribute options. When you select two or more items the Align and Distribute options show up in the measurements bar. Sometimes I had to hover the mouse over the top center portion of the measurement palette to force the Align options to show up. I too have wanted this feature for a long time. As far as patherfinder option, I don't see Quark adding that kind of functionality because that is more of a vector program tool (used in Illustrator, Corel Draw, or Freehand). I think it would be handy in a layout program too but I just don't see them adding it. We can only hope for it.

Nicolecat
Apr 8, 2008, 10:52 AM
I agree...
I know companies that still use Quark, and it is very utilitarian.

InDesign is so amazing though, and much more versatile in the things you can do with it. Plus if your familiar with Photoshop or Illustrator, you should pick it up rather quickly. Especially the CS3 version...they've added some effects (that can be applied to text as well as other objects) much like you would see in Photoshop.

Good Stuff. :D

MacBoobsPro
Apr 8, 2008, 11:19 AM
I have been a Quark user for about 10 years but last week I made the jump to InDesign. The reason being that Quark has always been a very buggy and primitive application in my opinion. Unfortunately Quark was the only real option for page layout back when I started studying graphics so I grew up with it.

Every update though 4, 5, 6 and 7 have always been an absolute waste of time on Quarks part because they seem to introduce even more bugs without fixing the last lot while still seemingly managing to introduce only medioicre new features and never allwing backwards compatibility. Take version 7 for example. Its main selling point is transparency. There are more but lets take this as an example.

For 4 months I have been working on a catalogue for a client using Quark 7 - the first job I've done in Quark 7 since upgrading from 6. When it finally came to PDFing the document, every single image had a 'halo' around it where the binding box should be. All the images had alpha masks to cut out the image in quark and the binding box colour was set to none but the binding box could be seen by this 'halo'. I spent days trying to figure out what was causing it and how to fix the problem. It turns out that Quark 7s biggest selling point doesnt work and creates halos of the binding boxes of any item that touches any item that makes use of the 'opacity' function. This has been confirmed by a few people on Quarks support site.

I had designed the catalogue so that there was a background image covering the entire page on each spread and then placed semi transparent boxes on top to depict different sections of the catalogue and allow greater contrast of the text over the background image. Because I used the opacity function to do this every image that sat on these boxes i.e. all 500+ of them had this problem and after much searching of Quarks support site and various other places the only thing I could do was to not use transparency any where at all in the document and this included all the drop shadows on every image I had used because this also uses Quarks transparency technology and also causes this halo effect. Apparently its something to do with the way Quark 'flattens' transparent objects when PDFing. It has to slice them up and such which causes these boxes to appear because it slices using a spoon and a flip-flop.

Because of this bug I lost a lot of money because I missed my deadline and I have this week completed my first job in InDesign after opening InDesign up for the first time ever last week. It is so easy to pick up if you know Quark already and are familiar with Photoshop or Illustrator. Its kind of a mix of both. I am cheesed off I didn't switch over sooner, I always intended too as it is clearly the way the wind is blowing. Quark has remained stagnant for a very long time and the smell its giving off has finally pushed me away.

After using InDesign for a week I would say avoid Quark at all costs! :)

Nicolecat
Apr 8, 2008, 11:43 AM
Glad to hear you're loving it like the rest of us! :D

I have to say my favorite thing is being able to use a gradient feather (even to a placed image).

MacBoobsPro
Apr 8, 2008, 11:49 AM
Glad to hear you're loving it like the rest of us! :D

I have to say my favorite thing is being able to use a gradient feather (even to a placed image).

I haven't got that far yet but I'm sure it won't be too difficult to figure it out. My main reason for not switching was because I thought it would be hard to learn but it is an absolute breeze. I had to call a mate though to ask how to turn off the guide box thingies. In Quark F7 gets rid of the guides and the object boxes but in InDesign they are two different things. :)

macstudent
Apr 8, 2008, 01:30 PM
The biggest problem with Quarks handling of transparency is that it has to flatten the transparency when a PDF is created. InDesign on the other hand can keep the transparency native. This allows the printer to fine tune the PDF for correct output and avoid your halo issues that you were having with Quark

MechaSpanky
Apr 10, 2008, 11:37 AM
macstudent,

You said, "The biggest problem with Quarks handling of transparency is that it has to flatten the transparency when a PDF is created. InDesign on the other hand can keep the transparency native. This allows the printer to fine tune the PDF for correct output and avoid your halo issues that you were having with Quark"

I am surprised that you would think that this is a problem. Quark Xpress flattens the transparency on PDF files because that is what many RIPs and workflows require. I have seen tons of problems created because InDesign doesn't flatten the transparency on PDF's. Everything that gets printed has to go through some kind of RIP or workflow in order for the printer to make film, plates, or to be sent to a digital press. Quark's approach is that many printers aren't the most technologically advanced companies and so they want to make their PDF's in such a way that they will work with many different RIP's and workflows.

InDesign has lots of nice features and lots of designers love it. Many of InDesigns features are aimed at designers with little regard to prepress. Quark Xpress is more prepress friendly when compared to InDesign. That might be why Quark XPress flattens the transparency.

macstudent
Apr 10, 2008, 04:28 PM
Actually, you want to keep the transparency native for as long as possible. It will allow for changes to happen at a later date. Not to mention that with the new PDF print engine that came out last fall, transparency flattening is a thing of the past.

Check out this article that talks about the PDF print engine.

http://blogs.adobe.com/indesignchannel/2008/04/pdf_print_engine_james_wamser.html#more

kitki83
Apr 10, 2008, 08:36 PM
I got a question for everyone, how do you migrate Quark Files to InDesign?

Phew someone posted this, so I wont have to make a post.

MechaSpanky
Apr 10, 2008, 09:39 PM
macstudent,

I understand what you mean about maintaining the transparency in your files as long as possible and I agree with you to a point. It is important to keep the transparency in your layout file (your Quark Xpress file or your Indesign file or even your Illustrator and Photoshop files) that way you can apply changes with relative ease. The whole idea of sending PDF's to a printer is that the PDF's are complete. There shouldn't be any need to change things on PDF's except on some rare occasion. If changes do need to be made, it is usually preferable to make the changes in the original file instead of the PDF. Plus as I mentioned before, printers charge a crazy amount to "adjust" your files.

The link you posted was interesting but you have to take what Adobe says with a grain of salt. Adobe is out to make a profit and so they will make statements that support their software solutions. Just because Adobe says something, doesn't mean that it is always correct in the real world. In an ideal world, every printer would be using the most up to date software and the most recent RIP's and workflows. In reality, many printers are using old RIP's or workflows that can't handle PDF's that contain transparency. In my experience, Adobe only deals in the "ideal Adobe world".

I like Adobe and while I think many of their products are great, they are not infallible. While many people here will tell you how bad Quark Xpress is, Quark XPress is a great product. Without Quark XPress, you wouldn't be using InDesign. You would be using PageMaker. I'm just a little sad that the government allowed Adobe to buy Macromedia. No matter how much I like Adobe's products, I think that the lack of competition will make for a lack of innovation in the their future products.

IgnatiusTheKing
Apr 10, 2008, 10:12 PM
macstudent,I'm just a little sad that the government allowed Adobe to buy Macromedia. No matter how much I like Adobe's products, I think that the lack of competition will make for a lack of innovation in the their future products.

Adobe holds no monopoly and they will make a good, but very quirky, program much better. The last thing we need is for the government to start telling successful companies how to do their business.

durija
Apr 11, 2008, 08:43 AM
I got a question for everyone, how do you migrate Quark Files to InDesign?

Phew someone posted this, so I wont have to make a post.

Software from Markzware: http://www.markzware.com/q2id/
I think it is about $300.
Anything is better than working on someone else's screwed up Quark file.

MechaSpanky
Apr 11, 2008, 11:22 AM
IgnatiusTheKing,

You said,"Adobe holds no monopoly and they will make a good, but very quirky, program much better. The last thing we need is for the government to start telling successful companies how to do their business."

That is an interesting perspective. So you think the government shouldn't have anything to do with companies as long as they are successful? Maybe they shouldn't have to follow the laws either as long as they are successful. Yes, Adobe doesn't have a pure monopoly but in many areas they are the only game in town.

I don't have a problem with Adobe buying Macromedia I just think it is strange how the government can deny some mergers and allow others. When Macromedia was a separate company it forced Adobe to compete. Competition is at the heart of capitalism and I think competition is what makes companies better. I just feel that there is a lack of companies producing professional level graphics software and I think that the lack of competition is not good for the consumers.

bc2002
Jun 15, 2009, 11:47 AM
I am the pre-press production manager in a large printing firm. I can only make comments on how we have been impacted, and cannot or will not comment on other situations. The company that I work for receives files from many sources (we have a minimum of 1,000 clients we service)... most of which is now supplied as PDF (perhaps about 85% PDF - 15% Native). Of the 15% open native files supplied to our firm, about 2-3% of that is QuarkXPress. Furthermore, when I examine the document properties of all the PDF's we receive, I find that 9 times out of 10, the PDF was created from Indesign. In my twenty years working in the print/publishing industry, I have witnessed a dramatic turn around in the publishing/design marketshare. Quark was the only game in town, especially when Pagemaker still existed, but when Adobe bought Pagemaker, and started rebuilding it... the writing was on the wall.

decksnap
Jun 15, 2009, 11:54 AM
Well, with CS2 you register and that's it. Not so with CS3. The system now somehow remembers that you have send and activated your copy 2 times (say on a laptop and a desktop) as it is allowed. If you buy a new computer and want to run it there you have to deactivate one of the 2 installs first.

So while this generally is no big deal, what if your laptop is stolen and you can't deactivate it? What if your computers hard drive crashes and you can't deactivate? What if you have to reinstall your system and you forget to deactivate, or can't do so anymore?

You have to call Adobe, wait on their hotline until anybody shows up, and hope that they are kind enough to believe your story.

And any of the above szenarios is one where every professional has a more or less big problem anyway, and time is important. In such an extremely frustrating situation I'm sure it's great fun to have to deal with Adobe tech support.

I understand that they want to prevent their products from being pirated, but please not at the cost of the paying customer.

What's next? You only can use CS4 when you are connected to the internet?

Sorry for the rant. :o

I know this is an older thread that just got resurrected, but I wanted to mention that I have CS3 and this activation business does not seem to be the case. I believe it may be because we bought multiple licences/upgrades?

I was worried when I clean installed to a new drive about going back and deactivating the old versions, but following the online instructions, the deactivation option simply does not exist in my version. So, I just installed it on the new one without any problems.

chaosbunny
Jun 15, 2009, 12:39 PM
I know this is an older thread that just got resurrected, but I wanted to mention that I have CS3 and this activation business does not seem to be the case. I believe it may be because we bought multiple licences/upgrades?

I was worried when I clean installed to a new drive about going back and deactivating the old versions, but following the online instructions, the deactivation option simply does not exist in my version. So, I just installed it on the new one without any problems.

Good for you! :)

I had problems like I described last year 2 times though, and each times it was almost 2 hours on the phone. Maybe they changed something in the CS3 activation since CS4 is now out for a couple of months, or I was simply unlucky.

IgnatiusTheKing
Jun 15, 2009, 01:28 PM
That is an interesting perspective. So you think the government shouldn't have anything to do with companies as long as they are successful? Maybe they shouldn't have to follow the laws either as long as they are successful. Yes, Adobe doesn't have a pure monopoly but in many areas they are the only game in town.

I don't have a problem with Adobe buying Macromedia I just think it is strange how the government can deny some mergers and allow others. When Macromedia was a separate company it forced Adobe to compete. Competition is at the heart of capitalism and I think competition is what makes companies better. I just feel that there is a lack of companies producing professional level graphics software and I think that the lack of competition is not good for the consumers.

Thanks to the resurrection of this thread, I just noticed this reply. And no, that's not what I meant.

I meant what I said, that the government has no business sticking its nose in the business of a company that is not a monopoly. I said government intervention is the last thing WE NEED because governments make successful businesses unsuccessful.

covisio
Jun 16, 2009, 03:45 AM
macstudent,

I understand what you mean about maintaining the transparency in your files as long as possible and I agree with you to a point. It is important to keep the transparency in your layout file (your Quark Xpress file or your Indesign file or even your Illustrator and Photoshop files) that way you can apply changes with relative ease. The whole idea of sending PDF's to a printer is that the PDF's are complete. There shouldn't be any need to change things on PDF's except on some rare occasion. If changes do need to be made, it is usually preferable to make the changes in the original file instead of the PDF. Plus as I mentioned before, printers charge a crazy amount to "adjust" your files.

The link you posted was interesting but you have to take what Adobe says with a grain of salt. Adobe is out to make a profit and so they will make statements that support their software solutions. Just because Adobe says something, doesn't mean that it is always correct in the real world. In an ideal world, every printer would be using the most up to date software and the most recent RIP's and workflows. In reality, many printers are using old RIP's or workflows that can't handle PDF's that contain transparency. In my experience, Adobe only deals in the "ideal Adobe world".

I like Adobe and while I think many of their products are great, they are not infallible. While many people here will tell you how bad Quark Xpress is, Quark XPress is a great product. Without Quark XPress, you wouldn't be using InDesign. You would be using PageMaker. I'm just a little sad that the government allowed Adobe to buy Macromedia. No matter how much I like Adobe's products, I think that the lack of competition will make for a lack of innovation in the their future products.

Again, sorry if I'm necroposting, or whatever the hell you call it, but here's my two pence worth:
Firstly, RIPs that are PDF 1.4-compatible (i.e. can handle PDF with transparency) have been default for what, 10 years now? If some printers or pre-press houses are running RIPs older than that, then really they need to take a look at where they're spending their money.
The fact is such companies that whinge that they can't cope with the files you are sending them, when they are provided with perfect, industry-standard print ready files are basically lazy or greedy and can't be bothered trying to find out 'why' they can't handle the files. The same companies would be working with flat-copy artwork if they could get away with it.
Quark XPress majored in the days when separated PostScript was king (and InDesign didn't exist). It also majored in publishing, i.e. the transmission of the written word in newspapers and magazines. It was abandoned (for Freehand and Illustrator) in other branches of design and pre-press, particularly packaging, years before InDesign even existed.
Where InDesign scores is in the workflow - to go from design, to print ready files, to PDF, to output is seamless and hassle free. Again, I haven't used Quark since V4, and I'm sure it's improved, but they never got a second chance with me.

MacBoobsPro
Jun 16, 2009, 04:08 AM
I haven't used Quark since V4, and I'm sure it's improved, but they never got a second chance with me.

Nope if you ask me it's actually gone backwards (thats not a joke).

Seriously!

durija
Jun 18, 2009, 04:57 PM
InDesign is easier and more intuitive to use than Quark in almost every way – for me, although I realize not for all. I got to the point where I would cringe whenever a Quark file came into our shop. Now when the rare Quark document appears, I look at it as an opportunity to break up the monotony of the PDFs and InDesign files that present so few challenges. I don't see how Quark can even survive much longer. No plans here to upgrade when version 9 arrives (probably never).

Phormic
Jun 18, 2009, 11:12 PM
It's funny but in the days when Quark was dominant they treated their customers with such disdain, particularly Mac users. Exorbitant pricing, poor support, slow, slow rates of updates. In fact, the lack of a MacOS X version of Quark kept me on System 9 for far longer than I hoped. When InDesign became a realistic alternative, I jumped as quick as I could and laughed as the Quark ship sank.

Now Adobe OWNS creative software and commit exactly the same mistakes. A lack of competition (particularly after they swallowed Macromedia) has resulted in their software becoming expensive, bloated and poorly thought out. We desperately need some competition.

Now I kinda hope that Quark gets their act together.

a cat *miaow*
Jun 19, 2009, 12:18 PM
InDesign is so amazing though, and much more versatile in the things you can do with it.

This I would say is the number 1 point.
In all honesty i've spent most of my design career cursing Quark... but... one thing which can never be discounted it IS fast. It does what it does very efficently, and if I wanted to create a document quickly it would by my application of choice.

InDesign has a lot of extra features, and this is it's versatility – but if you're not using them, they get in the way and low down the process. It will still take me much longer to create any doc in ID than on QX.
If you read a lot of the comments above, many of the positives of ID are not core to DTP.

The only reason I personally use ID is because it's bundled with CS.

decksnap
Jun 19, 2009, 05:13 PM
This I would say is the number 1 point.
In all honesty i've spent most of my design career cursing Quark... but... one thing which can never be discounted it IS fast. It does what it does very efficently, and if I wanted to create a document quickly it would by my application of choice.

InDesign has a lot of extra features, and this is it's versatility – but if you're not using them, they get in the way and low down the process. It will still take me much longer to create any doc in ID than on QX.
If you read a lot of the comments above, many of the positives of ID are not core to DTP.

The only reason I personally use ID is because it's bundled with CS.

This is a very good point... I think it was discussed in another thread. Quark, despite not sharing the same palette setup with the other CS apps like ID does, has a more efficient and less intrusive gui imo. I like InDesign but it is harder/slower to work in, and has it's own set of annoyances.

CK.
Jun 19, 2009, 05:26 PM
I can only speak for myself, but I would take InDesign any day. This has a lot to do with my already-build workflow, of course, that has been improved for each time I've used it to be efficient. What I do is putting manga books together, which is done in three steps:

First, cleaning the original files from japanese or dutch or english or whatever country we buy the licenses from (America is most convenient, as all the sound effects are already laid out then) using Photoshop.

Second, mount all of the finished pages in InDesign.

Third, add all the text the translator sent.

And that's pretty much my two percent of a dollar!

durija
Jun 20, 2009, 10:57 AM
Any application that makes you draw a box before you can place an image (QX) is not my idea of efficient.

How fast you operate has a lot more to do with your familiarity, skill and experience with the tools than the nature of the app.

It would be interesting to have a "design-off". I'm not very fast, but I have a prepress coworker who is lightning quick in ID.

AppleThis&That
Jun 20, 2009, 12:45 PM
I switched to InDesign years ago. I particularly like the fact that you can create Packages of your links and fonts in one organized folder to prep for the press. The software seems to preview smoother as well and runs faster IMO.

I haven't used Quark for 3-4 years now but at the time I enjoyed InDesign better. I guess it's because I have just gotten use to the interface, etc.

maestro007
Jun 3, 2010, 02:49 PM
Well I use both professionally and have actually taught both. I choose Indesign for the following reasons.

1. Quark Express did NOT come up with any new updates for 7 years during it's reign as being the industry standard layout program. Only until Indesign was released to put competition back in the market place did Quark bother putting out new updates and then all of the sudden they are competing.

2. Both work and product the same quality of work and if you used to one maybe you could prefer it however here is what I know indesign has over Quark.

a. Indesign has built in Path finder and path tools far superior to Quark and they work inconjunction with Illustrator more effectively. For this alone you should stay with the4 group of CS suite capabilities for perfomance.

b. Indesign has superior measurement scales...

c. Quark requires plug ins to compete with all of Indesign features.

d. When you lock an image in Quark you can still effect and even delete it? What the !@#@!! That's not locked.

e.QuarkXPress has drag-and-drop text editing, a kern-pair editor (see Figure 4), and the ability to save hyphenation and justification settings as named styles.

Quark costs more! Why buy something that is less powerful for more money..Quark may have a feature or two indesign doesn't but when you compare and weigh all of the balances Indesign is an easier working environment that works better with other Adobe products. In addition, Quark is losing if it hasn't already lost its ground as being the Industry standard.

I have used Quark for years and before that Pagemaker (I'm getting old I guess) so I don't think Quark is terrible but they really haven't done their job until threatened by a superior company.;)

design-is
Jun 4, 2010, 07:05 AM
This is an old thread, but some good points well put!

Especially now with CS5 out, InDesign is the only real option for anyone with a choice (in my humble opinion).

Quark was trying to sell itself on it's 'interactive' elements for a while, but now with CS5, InDesign can produce the same sort of stuff, even easier. Not to mention all of the other improvements and the ability to export ebooks for the iPad.

/Doug

jeremy h
Jun 4, 2010, 09:46 AM
Yep - I think the 'war' is well and truly over. I now only keep a copy of Quark to occasionally update a legacy job I can't be bothered to re-do in InDesign. (I doubt I'll ever now go beyond Q7 and I wonder if we'll ever see Quark release V9?)

I think the type of work we (I?) now do suits InDesign better anyway. I find there's far less straightforward large page extent projects about (product catalogues etc) that you could just 'chug through' in Quark. Most of my work now is much more PDF based, 'fiddly' and need more design effects / input 'per page' than before... Areas where I think InDesign has always been better. It will be a shame to leave Adobe with a monopoly though... Let's hope they behave better than Quark did when they were the only game in town!

IgnatiusTheKing
Jun 4, 2010, 09:48 AM
Not to mention all of the other improvements and the ability to export ebooks for the iPad.

And more importantly, the Kindle, which still dominates the e-book market.

DesignerOnMac
Jun 4, 2010, 10:57 PM
I'm sorry DesignerOnMac, but I have to agree with decksnap. I have been working as a graphic designer for over 17 years and I have never seen a printer that won't take Quark Xpress files. I also have worked in the prepress department at several large publishing houses and all of them preferred Quark Xpress files over InDesign files. More recently, most printers prefer PDF files. They don't really care what program you used to make the PDF's only that you didn't use RGB images. Most of the large design firms that I have worked for and all the printers, prefer Quark Xpress to InDesign.

InDesign does have some nice features but I actually prefer Quark Xpress. Quark feels a little more streamlined than InDesign does. Of course I do like the fact that InDesigns plays so well with the other Adobe products but it really isn't that big of a deal to me. Everyone has their favorite. I do use InDesign when I have to but if the choice is mine to make, I go with Quark. I think it is great that InDesign is doing good because the competition forces Quark to make a better product too. I think in the end the winners are the users.

mbrellisford, as a side note. Your logic about "future graphic designers" only learning InDesign is causing companies to switch from Quark Xpress to InDesign is flawed. Do you think that companies choose their software based on what universities are teaching? No, they use the software that fits into their workflow the best.

InDesign has made some serious inroads into Quark Xpress territory because of two reasons. One, Adobe quit making PageMaker. While PageMaker was a horrible program, many people used it and so Adobe gained tons of InDesign users by default simply because users couldn't get PageMaker anymore and so they just got whatever Adobe was selling. Secondly, Adobe aggressively markets the CS suite which includes InDesign. Every graphic designer uses PhotoShop and Illustrator, so most designers buy the suite and it comes with InDesign. That has helped a lot of people to make the switch.

To answer abrooks question, both InDesign and Quark Xpress are great products. Many people here will tell you that no one uses Quark any more. That is not true. I think a good well rounded designer would take it upon himself to learn them both. Originally I learned how to use PageMaker and Quark Xpress because some of my clients preferred one over the other. Often times you won't get to decide which program to use, your company or your client will decide. I wish you the best of luck.

Sorry, but your a 'baby' in the industry...lol 40+ years dealing with printers.
I have also worked prepress for the largest financial printer in the USA. I have also worked in the book publishing business for 10 years. I have also done box design and layout. And none of my printers or the companies I have worked for and continue to work for accept Quark files.

decksnap
Jun 7, 2010, 07:58 AM
Sorry, but your a 'baby' in the industry...lol 40+ years dealing with printers.
I have also worked prepress for the largest financial printer in the USA. I have also worked in the book publishing business for 10 years. I have also done box design and layout. And none of my printers or the companies I have worked for and continue to work for accept Quark files.

If that is true, that is very strange, and not the norm.

MechaSpanky
Jun 7, 2010, 10:50 PM
Sorry, but your a 'baby' in the industry...lol 40+ years dealing with printers.
I have also worked prepress for the largest financial printer in the USA. I have also worked in the book publishing business for 10 years. I have also done box design and layout. And none of my printers or the companies I have worked for and continue to work for accept Quark files.

I have to agree with desksnap on this one. It is unusual for printers to not accept Quark Xpress files. As far as prepress and design goes, Quark Xpress is every bit as good as InDesign. The difference between Quark Xpress and Indesign comes down to a matter of tastes. Some people prefer Windows, some prefer Mac. Some people prefer Maya, some prefer Cinema 4D. In the hands of a good designer, both tools can produce good designs. Choice is good for the consumer.

Most printers these days don't care what program you used to create the design, they just want a PDF that they can use in their workflow (also they need a file that is the correct size, has bleed, is CMYK or uses the proper spot colors, and has the fonts embedded). They don't care if you use InDesign or Quark Xpress. So it comes down to what the designer feels most comfortable using. Some prefer Indesign, some prefer Quark Xpress.