Poll: Indesign vs QuarkXPress? [Archive]

mim

Apr 24, 2003, 03:38 AM

I've used both for a while, on mac and pc, and I much prefer Indesign (not simply 'cause it's osX). Indesign has much better ways of doing simple things (like >drawing a line<...sheeze, how hard should it be? :p ).

Also...this is my first post! I've been lurking for a while...sorry...and have just built up enough courage to join all you lovely folk. And no, I'm not going off topic - I want to explain that I've seen the various debates over the speed of mac v's the speed of x86.

And one reason I love macs so much is that for graphic work like Indesign & PShop, they are faster. No doubts. Show me all the benchmarks you like, and I can show you the same Indesign/Photoshop file open on a Mac & a pc. Try >resizing< the file window on both machines. I'm on a athlon 2400+ with a gig of ram at the moment. It still chokes on large files. The mac may not have the raw powers, but for doing simple, common tasks it responds instantly. At the moment for me, an IBM ppc would just be icing on the cake.

a!

iGav

Apr 24, 2003, 05:03 AM

Indesign all the way.... better total integration with all of Adobe's de-facto publishing software, improving work flow, and performance considerably....

And now that more and more printers are supporting PDF.... the main argument for staying on Quark has been removed from the equation...

mangoman

Apr 24, 2003, 05:49 AM

Look, it's Quack, the baby seal of graphic apps. Grab a club and smack it in the head!

WHACKWHACKWHACK.

(Oh the Joy: another opportunity to soak a Thread full of hate and discontent over a crap app' like Quack.)

j33pd0g

Apr 24, 2003, 07:37 AM

I have no choice but to use the 4.0 version of Quark. My paper isn't ever going to upgrade to Quark 5, 6, 7, 8 , 9 or 10. And on top of that they have taken some kind of stand against Indesign - no reason given to me. They will also never uprade to OS X. I would like to test the new version of each before making a decision. Quark 4.0 works fine... but realize that it will soon be a dead fish on the shores of modern technology. So I guess I can't fairly vote on todays poll.

Rustus Maximus

Apr 24, 2003, 07:52 AM

Quark won't be the only dead thing stinking up the air if your paper doesn't adopt a better attitude about the future of technology and move to OSX...

You have my sympathy, working for such a shortsighted organization. And you CAN vote fairly...the question asks which you prefer...not which you are FORCED to adapt.;)

filmguy1105

Apr 24, 2003, 07:57 AM

I've used both and I definitely feel InDesign is equal to if not better than Quark at doing the job. It used to be that a big part of the reason people used Quark was because of its reliable output to film at your printer and because of it's ability to create pdf files with distiller. I've used InDesign on at least a half dozen jobs now with a single problem at the printers I've used. Even the one that didn't have InDesign in their prepress department was able to use the pdf that I created without trouble. Also InDesign has opened and converted all of my old Quark files flawlessly. All of this done without firing up classic.

jayscheuerle

Apr 24, 2003, 08:11 AM

I have to use Quark everyday at work and I like using it.

I've used InDesign for one production piece, a large trade show display with embedded Quark eps files opened up in illustrator, text outlined and resaved. InDesign allowed me to work in ways and achieve results that wouldn't have been possible in Quark.

InDesign2 is not as repsonsive as I'd like on a 450MHz G4 and I'm far more comfortable with Quark's text handling at this point.

I had the chance to play around with a beta of Quark 6 and it really pissed me off to see that there was nothing really new or special about this upgrade other than clumsily handled layers and a history palette. If Quark worked for me, I'd fire 'em.

I wish I could save Quark files out of InDesign so that our production department would be able to open them.

Quark's future is based on legacy, not on the product's strengths and I wish I could work without 'em... - j

jkojima

Apr 24, 2003, 08:42 AM

Quark is still the most dominant player in the publishing industry. Their user base is so big that Apple specifically cited that company's slowness to come to the OS X market as a primary reason for slow PowerMac sales. Truthfully, I think it's the more elegant program, but it's rooted in an old way of thinking. Quark needs to put the innovation afterburners on if it wants to hold its lead. I've used Quark since version 3, and InDesign since its inception, and though I feel InDesign has a few rough edges that need to be worked out, it's my preferred program.

Just as an aside - anybody else here think that Adobe might be getting a little too powerful? If they beat out Quark, they'll hold a virtual monopoly in the major pro design arenas. I just worry that we might see that success going to their heads... there's certainly precident out there.

mangoman

Apr 24, 2003, 08:46 AM

robMaurizi

Apr 24, 2003, 08:58 AM

If I ACTUALLY HAD A CHOICE, I'd use Quark. However, since I've given up OS 9 in all shapes & forms, I'm forced to use InDesign. I feel Quark is a much stronger app when it comes to prepress production, so given the choice, it's Quark. The last few print layout jobs I've done, however, were forced to be done in InDesign.. I'm getting used to it, but I really <flame retardant suit>miss using Quark</flame retardant suit>... I can't wait for the OS X native version (6?) to wind up my way ;-)

-Rob

mangoman

Apr 24, 2003, 09:08 AM

Ladies and Germs:

We have our first Quack sympathizer of the day! Please connect your flamethrowers to their tanks and hose this poor soul down with a healthy dose of hellfire!

Actually, Rob, you have my respect for actually weighing in on Quack's side. That takes rhino balls, my man.

jayscheuerle

Apr 24, 2003, 09:16 AM

Rhino balls indeed...

Even though I run it through Classic, Quark's extremely responsive. It allows me to design.

The pokiness of ID2 on a 450MHz G4 hurts my "flow", the ability to quickly tweak or destroy and regroup a layout.

The feature set of ID2, from being able to import photoshop files with transparencies & semi-transparencies, feathered edges, etc., along with great layer handling and decent printing to non-postscript printers make it extremely compelling. I'm hoping ID3 will be quicker, because work's not buying me a new box anytime soon... - j

Sonofhaig

Apr 24, 2003, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by Fall
I'd use InDesign, but I don't have my own mac, or money to buy it.

I am currently using Quark 3 at work!! hahaha, classic mode under OSX!

Sad sad state of affairs...

Version 3? OMG! And in OS X? Well, at this point, you might as well wait
for Version 6 or go to Indesign. I just went to an Adobe seminar on Indesign. Looks fantastic! We're making the switch in my company. Express will be left in the dust. Version 3? Gosh, I can't get over that... What kind of cheap company do you work for? And I thought my company was cheap!

mrsebastian

Apr 24, 2003, 11:15 AM

is it just me or does quark really feel like a pc program? quark may run a little faster and feel more responsive, but it's certainly a more industrial program with a spotty interface (kinda like a pc). id2 on the other hand feels more like a mac with a complete and great interface and well thought out, but maybe a litter slower (more like a mac)... things that make you go hmmmm...

i for one, am done with quark for my daily layout program! it seems to me that quark just strings us along, coming out with some crappy upgrade every, i dunno... 5 years? and more so indesign will soon be version 3 in about a quarter of the time it took quark to get there. i guess i just feel like, what have you done for me lately quark?!

Hemingray

Apr 24, 2003, 11:27 AM

This is a pretty vague poll. Versus for what? User preference? Usability? Sheer spite for Quark? I wonder how accurate the results will be if people vote for InDesign just because everybody hates 'em, as opposed to if the voter has actually used both programs and can determine which program is better.

(Just being the devil's advocate here, I'm no big fan of Quark! I had to vote "No Opinion", however, because I have not used InDesign enough to tell if it is better or worse than Quark.)

nero007

Apr 24, 2003, 11:45 AM

jayscheuerle

Apr 24, 2003, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by mrsebastian
is it just me or does quark really feel like a pc program? quark may run a little faster and feel more responsive, but it's certainly a more industrial program with a spotty interface (kinda like a pc). id2 on the other hand feels more like a mac with a complete and great interface and well thought out, but maybe a litter slower (more like a mac)... things that make you go hmmmm...

Quark's interface just hasn't changed since before Mac programs had a "look and feel" or more likely since Adobe defined a look which Macromedia soon copied as closely as they could without getting into legal hassels.

It IS barebones, but effective. Quarks tiny measurement bar does the work of a half-dozen adobe palettes! - j

Wonder Boy

Apr 24, 2003, 01:10 PM

There is really no comparison anymore to be made between InDesign and Quark. InDesign is far better... it does everything Quark can do and more. The only reason to keep Quark around is if you haven't upgraded to X and if you're working in publishing. But hopefully the industry will continue to change over. InDesign is far less quirky than Quark... it integrates with other programs more cohesively. Far more options. How can you go wrong?!

idkew

Apr 24, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by jkojima

Just as an aside - anybody else here think that Adobe might be getting a little too powerful? If they beat out Quark, they'll hold a virtual monopoly in the major pro design arenas. I just worry that we might see that success going to their heads... there's certainly precident out there.

While you do have a point, it is not as if Adobe is bullying Quark out of its position, Quark is doing it by itself. There is nothing wrong with a company that makes great products AND does not bully competition.

Anyway- Adobe makes apps that help Quark export to PDF...

As long as Adobe is making great apps at a reasonable price and supporting Apple, I will buy their products.

RBMaraman

Apr 24, 2003, 03:26 PM

After using both Indesign and Quark, I would have to say that I prefer Indesign.

I found it much easier to navigate around Indesign. Adobe has done an excellent job with the app, and I'm sure it'll get even better as time progresses.

As for Quark, I have a love/hate relationship with it. It does have some nice features, but overall Indesign just kicks its butt.

It's going to be interesting to see how well Quark 6 sells.

Pie

Apr 24, 2003, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by nero007
It's possible. Maybe Apple will buy Quark up after it goes down the sh*tter and add some good user interface and useablity to it?

:D

If Apple bought Quark Adobe would **** all over Apple by prioritising PC applications. Adobe would not like Apple going in direct competion with them again (Final Cut?)

dmjones

Apr 24, 2003, 10:57 PM

I've used both Xpress and ID and have found both lacking in different areas. I've found Xpress to work quickly and (mostly) solidly under OS 9. It is quirky, but once you learn the quirks it works much faster for any given job than the standard it supplanted--PageMaker. It also gives reliable, predictable output to PostScript 2 devices like Imagesetters.

InDesign has many more features than Xpress--and some really innovative ones, too! It is better for raw design, but tends to run slower than Xpress--probably as a result of so many great tools and features. ID doesn't seem as well-suited for longer documents (16-100 pages) as Xpress. And probably the biggest problem I have with ID--unreliable output. All those great features (like transparency) that designers love to use make successful output to a PS2 device all but impossible. I know the designers' standard answer to that as well: "Well, if you'd just upgrade to PS3 there wouldn't be a problem." To which I say: "If money would grow on trees, I wouldn't have a problem upgrading to PS3."

I would say that both programs have their pros and cons, but in the end I would like to see Adobe win out by creating ID to run quickly and output reliably even with all the neato features.

Moz

Apr 25, 2003, 03:28 PM

I've been working on a Mac in the advertising industry for years and years. As an agency, we are not on OS X. I do not know 1 person in our entire agency that would prefer to use OS X and InDesign. Moreover, I've heard numerous vendors and other agencies using Macs, "Who wants OS X anyway?".

Because of the hectic pase of advertising, the looming deadlines and the crazy work flow, we need all of our Macs to run FLAWLESSLY day in and day out. And, quite frankly, OS X is nowhere near what OS 9 is, for production like that. Sure, OS X may have a lot of eye candy, and pulsing buttons, but it's slow, clumsy, ackward and is troublesome. Everyone keeps bashing Quark for not jumping on the OS X bandwagon...but honestly, in order to do that, Quark has to have thier app running flawlessly, and able to handle everyhting from a 1 page layout with 2 colors, all the way to a multi-thousand page book with tons of spot colors and all kinds of production issues....and when you're dealing with big catalogs and clients that are spending millions of dollars to get something done correctly, you're not going to try to swing it on a Mac running an OS that is slow, unresponsive, and apps that were shoved out the door to make the move to OS X, when they're not quite ready and there are still glitches and bugs.

I and my roommate both are running OS X at home, and I cannot do layout on it like I can at work, using OS 9 and Quark 4. Even Photoshop and Illustrator, running natively in 10 are slower and clumsier...than 6 and 9 running on OS 9. The font management on OS X doesn't seem to work as well, it's really slow, and classic is a joke...and when dealing with hardcore production and spot varnishes and pantone colors, die cuts and all kinds of issues, OS X and Quark have a way to go, before our agency, or any others that I know, will be switching to the new OS and a Quark that runs natively on it.

It's a very big issue, and I can only imagine the coding and production issues that all have to be SOLVED prior to an OS X native Quark. I'd much rather wait for it to be done correctly, and for OS X to mature before I trust my client's work to OS X and a carbonised Quark.

mangoman

Apr 25, 2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Moz
I've been working on a Mac in the advertising industry for years and years. As an agency, we are not on OS X. I do not know 1 person in our entire agency that would prefer to use OS X and InDesign. Moreover, I've heard numerous vendors and other agencies using Macs, "Who wants OS X anyway?".

Because of the hectic pase of advertising, the looming deadlines and the crazy work flow, we need all of our Macs to run FLAWLESSLY day in and day out. And, quite frankly, OS X is nowhere near what OS 9 is, for production like that. Sure, OS X may have a lot of eye candy, and pulsing buttons, but it's slow, clumsy, ackward and is troublesome. Everyone keeps bashing Quark for not jumping on the OS X bandwagon...but honestly, in order to do that, Quark has to have thier app running flawlessly, and able to handle everyhting from a 1 page layout with 2 colors, all the way to a multi-thousand page book with tons of spot colors and all kinds of production issues....and when you're dealing with big catalogs and clients that are spending millions of dollars to get something done correctly, you're not going to try to swing it on a Mac running an OS that is slow, unresponsive, and apps that were shoved out the door to make the move to OS X, when they're not quite ready and there are still glitches and bugs.

I and my roommate both are running OS X at home, and I cannot do layout on it like I can at work, using OS 9 and Quark 4. Even Photoshop and Illustrator, running natively in 10 are slower and clumsier...than 6 and 9 running on OS 9. The font management on OS X doesn't seem to work as well, it's really slow, and classic is a joke...and when dealing with hardcore production and spot varnishes and pantone colors, die cuts and all kinds of issues, OS X and Quark have a way to go, before our agency, or any others that I know, will be switching to the new OS and a Quark that runs natively on it.

It's a very big issue, and I can only imagine the coding and production issues that all have to be SOLVED prior to an OS X native Quark. I'd much rather wait for it to be done correctly, and for OS X to mature before I trust my client's work to OS X and a carbonised Quark.

Where do I begin?..... Aw, fahgeddabout. It's beer thirty.... :rolleyes:

Notaclone

Apr 26, 2003, 03:07 PM

I went to Adobe's free all day seminar earlier this week. Worth the time (but I wish I snuck out on GoLive, snoooze, me spin no webs)
The features alone of ID were enough to convince me to switch. Preview Overprinting! Preview color plates! Use XP key-commands so I don't have to memorize the new ones!
The print vendors hi-tailed it before the cocktail hour was in full swing, but the one I did talk to said they had ZERO problems ripping the files (Rampage, BTW). But only about 5% of the incoming files are ID thus far for that vendor. Fye on the other print vendors for sneaking out too soon.
So I have spent all this week getting cosy in OSX, FINALLY. Now to see if InDesign lives up to the hype.
Hmmmm, I wonder if ID has a feature like XPress Tags. Did anyone have a use for that other than me?

scem0

Apr 26, 2003, 06:14 PM

nopinion. I just made a new word.....

LorraineP

Apr 29, 2003, 06:40 PM

I don't see a lot of old Quark users posting here. I have a LOT of Xtensions I've bought over the years that allow me to use Quark the way I need it to work. It will be a long time before I'd ever be able to get InDesign to jump through the same hoops. If I get in a big project where I have to call in extra hands, I'd rather be using Quark where I can find lots of other experts to temp in. You can learn either program fairly quickly, but it's the years and years of troubleshooting the weird stuff that make you comfortable with a program. Which is a shame because almost all of my most important production tools are now lost to OS X.

mangoman

Apr 29, 2003, 06:48 PM

All Quark bashing aside (and believe me, it's hard to restrain myself), you've brought up a good point. Those ol' Xtensions were never cheap, and I'm sorry to hear of your situation.

OK. Sympathy/empathy time is over. Now switch to InD'!!

;)

LorraineP

Apr 29, 2003, 07:02 PM

<< OK. Sympathy/empathy time is over. Now switch to InD'!! >>

Ok, sure. I work on books a lot. What do I use instead of ATM to make absolutely sure my fonts don't make paragraphs re-break, and how do I replace my Fontographer skills for mass-production of special characters? Which vendors can I use to "Xpress-tag" InDesign-tag my long text documents? You'd better get the violins back out.

mangoman

Apr 29, 2003, 08:51 PM

Violins back out, playin' 'em like a drunken hillbilly on a fiddle, girlfrien'.

You're right. Really. The transitions are a serious concern for those of us old enough to remember doin' cut and paste ads. Well, I'm BARELY old enough to have done a little of that...

OK. I'll say it. I actually hope (dons flame retardant suit again) that Quark for OS X is solid. Really. Put your flamethrowers down, kids. It's a simple matter of good ol' competition. Why should Adobe have all the bucks? Smells like Microsuck Junior, me thinks.

My .02 cents. And best wishes to you, LorraineP. Seriously.

Mudbug

May 1, 2003, 12:38 AM

<inject flame retardant>
There are simply too many of us out there that have tried InDesign and didn't like it, only to revert back to Quark. I'm not exactly ecstatic about having to boot into classic each time I do, well, pretty much anything at work, but I'd rather do that than spend the countless mindless hours learning a new software program that's pretty much Illustrator (which I don't like) with multiple pages. I just like Freehand better. They're essentially the same thing. But that's a different arguement, one that doesn't really EVER need to be started again.

And I have to agree about the xtension thing - I've got some buckage tied up in those as well, getting them to work the way that suits my workflow the best. DK&A Imposition was only a few thousand dollars, not to mention the learning curve of moving stripping from the big glass tables to a substantial workstation. Or Trapper - another multi-thousand dollar installation. Then there's the postscript 2/3 difference that can stop a lot of shops cold. Most printers can't afford to just off and change their RIP on the fly. Imagesetters are finicky, and from what I've experienced as a client and prepress guru, even if it says PS3, they really mean PS2 and willing to learn new tricks.

Then there's keyboard shortcuts. If I had to pull down a menu every time I wanted to get Quark or InDesign to do what I instinctively know is command-0, then I'm wasting time. And money. And that's not good.

And last but not least. Here's the big stopper from switching, at least in my case. I've got literally thousands of Quark files backed up from old and previous clients. I never know when one will call and say "can I have you pull up the ad we ran in 1997, make some changes to it, and run it again?" If I switch and abandon Quark, I run the risk of those files becoming obsolete... quickly. You can tell me until you are blue in the face that InDesign will open a Quark file without any problems, and I'll show you the multiple lockers of backup tapes full of Quark files, of which NONE have opening completely correctly in InDesign. Maybe it's the Quark 3 code in some of the file formats. Maybe it's me (entirely possible). But my point is that I don't want to alienate what I have spent years creating, or learning how to do for that matter. That's shooting myself in the foot.

Here's my concern, though. With Quark obviously working (albeit not very hard by the look of it) at releasing an OSX version of Q6, how do I know that I'm not going to have the same type of file issues opening the old files in the new program? Can I have a voucher from Quark like Old Spice: "If this software doesn't meet or exceed your needs, please send it back to us and receive a coupon good for one copy of InDesign." That would be great.

For all of you using and enjoying InDesign, more power to you. I'll keep my Quark for now, and probably for later as well.

Notaclone

May 1, 2003, 10:53 AM

In Design 2 can be set to use QXP key commands. Just Change Keyboard Shortcut set to QXP. from default.

BTW - I really don't want ID to eradicate QXP - I just want Quark to get their act together. We have been using the basically the same version of Quark for over seven years, and it's been that long since they have given a damn about their customer base as well. Too smug and complacent. And you can't buy a Mac bootable in OS9 anymore - it is inexcusable that they are so behind.

From a reactionary point of view - at least their has been nothing new to learn in Quark for a very long time. It's the one program we can all be a guru in!

you said:
Then there's keyboard shortcuts. If I had to pull down a menu every time I wanted to get Quark or InDesign to do what I instinctively know is command-0, then I'm wasting time.

LorraineP

May 1, 2003, 12:52 PM

<< We have been using the basically the same version of Quark for over seven years, and it's been that long since they have given a damn about their customer base as well. >>

Only seven years? I've had the same wish list of things to fix since the first version. I even put the list in Ebrahimi's hand at a Service Plus conference. I think they felt rich enough and weren't worried.

maradong

May 1, 2003, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors
Vote: Poll: Indesign vs QuarkXPress? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=170&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

Quark for sure!

mangoman

May 1, 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by maradong
Quark for sure!

That would be marawrong , maradong!

:D

mudbugger

Feb 23, 2004, 05:03 PM

Now that it's been several months since the last post and with Quark 6 out, a new version of InDesign, and OSX upgrades, how do you all feel?

j33pd0g

Feb 23, 2004, 05:23 PM

I guess it doesn't matter anymore. I have lost hope in the dream of OS X at work.

In a cost cutting move the company I work for will not upgrade or advance in technology. We will now be taking a step back, ditch Quark, and produce our newspaper with SimpleText and a whole lot of manual printing , snipping, and waxing. We will then shoot this waxed page with a camera to make a negative that we will then give to the pressroom. OK. Maybe I'm being overly drastic. But this is how I feel though stuck in OS 8.6.

idkew

Feb 23, 2004, 05:43 PM

i still go for indesign.

wdlove

Feb 24, 2004, 10:46 AM

I have have never used Quark. Have a more favorable impression toward Adobe.

dmjones

Feb 24, 2004, 11:05 AM

In the almost one year since I originally left a post on this thread, I have used Quark 4.11 almost exclusively. It's still the most stable, reliable program for graphic design and outputting to PostScript devices. That being said, I have recently purchased the Adobe Creative Suite for my business and have worked a little with InDesign CS (3.0).

I have used Quark 5 and 6 and have found absolutely no reason to upgrade (other than the fact that 6 runs natively in OS X). Quark has seemed to sit on their hands for the last 6 years or so, introducing no compelling new features in their flagship software. If I can get InDesign to output PostScript files or PDF files that my service bureau can use consistently, then I would love to make the move to ID. I have, in fact, made that one of the goals of my business during the next year--move more work to ID. The thing that would stop me from switching to ID completely (and dumping Quark) is that I have 10 years worth of files (created by me, my colleagues and my predecessors) that are all Quark 3 and 4. Also, my primary service bureau runs only Quark 5. It would be nice to only be on one program eventually, but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

judith

Feb 25, 2004, 01:10 AM

Originally posted by nero007
It's possible. Maybe Apple will buy Quark up after it goes down the sh*tter and add some good user interface and useablity to it?

:D

No, no, you got it all wrong, I keep telling my fiancee, that Apple should buy Adobe! I mean we all know Adobe products are made for Macs - it's a match made in design heaven! ....:D

Sparky's

Mar 1, 2004, 08:02 PM

I've been using Quark since v 2.0 in the late '80s and currently use 4.1 on a G4 running 9.2.2. I also use InDesign 2.0. I took over a desktop nightmare 8 years ago in that most of my comapnys files were in PageMaker 4, 5 and some 6, and Quark 3 (rough estimate 5,000 plus documents) Our established customer file base is about 6gb in size now with about 10,000 documents. Over the last year I have been trying to open and convert ALL the files into InDesign.
I fought tooth and nail for many a long time over the Q v I battle when it first raged......until I started using it! then it was like seeing the light in the darkness, and I moved toward it.
InDesign still has some (in my opinion) major converting issues and we have eaten a few printing jobs gone wrong because of it. but overall I must say InDesign --- Hands Down!!

I have just received OS 10.3, a G4-800 CPU chip, an 80gb internal HD and Quark 6.1 (We already have Adobe CS Premier for both PC and MAC) and have been looking forward to sharing the pain I hear so much about with these upgrades.
I'm sure will be posting and looking back to find answers to my nightmares.