Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Indesign 3.0
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
PageMaker
Hey.... what ever happened to PageMaker. I use to use it all the time, but know all I use is InDesign.
Hey.... what ever happened to PageMaker. I use to use it all the time, but know all I use is InDesign.
gotohamish
macrumors 65816
MisterMe
macrumors G4
Re: PageMaker
PageMaker is now at version 7. It is availabe for Windows and MacOS 9. You can buy it at the upgrade price of $99, presumeably if you have an older version. The regular price is just a bit steeper. The application that started the desktop publishing revolution has been retargeted to compete with the likes of PrintShop Deluxe and M$ Publisher.
sparkleytone
macrumors 68020
well, i have no interest whatsoever in either program, but i say kudos to adobe. any company who has a CEO that will tell its user base to switch platforms to get an acceptable product deserves to die a horrible death.
Oh no! Adobe has made ThinkSecret to remove the article!
Does anybody recall what was in it???
As a heavy user of InDesign I'd love to hear what's coming in 3.
Oh well...
I used to work on Quark 3 until a couple of years ago.
But I've switched most of my graphic design works to InDesign from Illustrator and Quark.
Graphic design in Japanese language is a very complicated matter due to the vast number of characters and delicate character arrangement. And Japanese edition of InDesign has tons of Japanese-edition-only functions. This makes InDesign a sperior choice over Quark for sure for us Japanese graphic designers. Japanese edition of Quark is just a localized version of English one, as I undestand. So in my professional opinion, InDesign vs. Quark matter is very different in Japan. InDesign rules!
Does anybody recall what was in it???
As a heavy user of InDesign I'd love to hear what's coming in 3.
Oh well...
I used to work on Quark 3 until a couple of years ago.
But I've switched most of my graphic design works to InDesign from Illustrator and Quark.
Graphic design in Japanese language is a very complicated matter due to the vast number of characters and delicate character arrangement. And Japanese edition of InDesign has tons of Japanese-edition-only functions. This makes InDesign a sperior choice over Quark for sure for us Japanese graphic designers. Japanese edition of Quark is just a localized version of English one, as I undestand. So in my professional opinion, InDesign vs. Quark matter is very different in Japan. InDesign rules!
i've been using indesign for a few years now, and i haven't looked back at quark since. what apple's final cut pro has been doing to avid, indesign is going to do to quark as os x really becomes entrenched and quark's bugginess and half-assed release schedule nails its coffin shut.
IJ Reilly
macrumors P6
Re: PageMaker
PageMaker may be up to version 7.0, but in truth, it has changed hardly at all since its days at Aldus. Adobe may have done a great job with InDesign, but I wish they'd never bought PageMaker. Even if you don't count the lack of an OSX version (and none even on the horizon), the application has been allowed to languish.
Re: InDesign
Ah, I agree with that. I was so frustrated with InDesign on 400MHz Mac. Now I have dual 1GHz and InDesign (on OS X) is working totally fine.
I've read an intreview article with Adobe guys a while back on InDesign. And they basically said they can make the software very powerful and add tons of functions because today's hardware is getting fast enought to support it.
So they expect you to upgrade your hardware along with your copy of InDesign.
When I read the article I thought about it for a moment. And I've decided I'm happy with their policy. Work efficiency means more money for a professional design guy like me and hardware cost is not much considering how much more I can make with better software.
Ah, I agree with that. I was so frustrated with InDesign on 400MHz Mac. Now I have dual 1GHz and InDesign (on OS X) is working totally fine.
I've read an intreview article with Adobe guys a while back on InDesign. And they basically said they can make the software very powerful and add tons of functions because today's hardware is getting fast enought to support it.
So they expect you to upgrade your hardware along with your copy of InDesign.
When I read the article I thought about it for a moment. And I've decided I'm happy with their policy. Work efficiency means more money for a professional design guy like me and hardware cost is not much considering how much more I can make with better software.
medazinol
macrumors 6502
Just to comment on the InDesign vs. Quark speed issue.
You have to remember that InDesign is going to be slower than Quark because its doing much more work than Quark does. First, it's rendering all the Postscript and PDF to the screen, this takes CPU cycles. Anti-aliasing, multi-line composer, drop-shadows, feathering etc.. all take computing horsepower.
Quark is fast because its not doing anywhere near as much fancy typesetting and graphics processing. Essentially all the code in Quark regardless of what version is pre-System7 days and was written at a time of limited horsepower (8Mhz machines) and RAM capacities. Also, Mac OS 9 is not a true multi-tasking OS, the front-most app gets most of the CPU cycles.
Anyhow, the main issue here is that InDesign was designed for the complicated typesetting that current design standards demand combined with the move to PDF-based workflows. Quark is still living in 1989 and are dragging their feet. The totally blew it with version5 and their sales figures are certainly showing that fact (they are not a publicly traded company so those details will never be known but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce this).
Also, the fact that Apple has basically deep-sixed Mac OS 9 and new machines next year will no longer boot directly into it spells disaster for companies looking to purchase new equipment in that time frame (either by choice or not). They won't have a choice, the machines will boot into Mac OS X and they will either: 1. Move to InDesign 2. Live with Quark in Classic
Moving to PC is not a real option. Think about it. if you move to PC and stay with Quark you still need to buy a whole new version of Quark (and don't tell me they give you a big break on the pricing, you better than that) and all of the plug-ins will need PC equivalents (if they even exist). Most of people who complain about moving off og Quark use the plug-ins excuse (I'll have to buy all new version for InDesign). What they don't realize is most of the plug-ins they rely upon for Quark have equivalent features in InDesign built-in.
My opinion is that moving to InDesign from a financial point-of-view is less expensive and puts you into a better position technology-wise in case your old PowerMac 9500 dies and you decide to buy a new PowerMac G(x)...
Better safe than sorry...
You have to remember that InDesign is going to be slower than Quark because its doing much more work than Quark does. First, it's rendering all the Postscript and PDF to the screen, this takes CPU cycles. Anti-aliasing, multi-line composer, drop-shadows, feathering etc.. all take computing horsepower.
Quark is fast because its not doing anywhere near as much fancy typesetting and graphics processing. Essentially all the code in Quark regardless of what version is pre-System7 days and was written at a time of limited horsepower (8Mhz machines) and RAM capacities. Also, Mac OS 9 is not a true multi-tasking OS, the front-most app gets most of the CPU cycles.
Anyhow, the main issue here is that InDesign was designed for the complicated typesetting that current design standards demand combined with the move to PDF-based workflows. Quark is still living in 1989 and are dragging their feet. The totally blew it with version5 and their sales figures are certainly showing that fact (they are not a publicly traded company so those details will never be known but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce this).
Also, the fact that Apple has basically deep-sixed Mac OS 9 and new machines next year will no longer boot directly into it spells disaster for companies looking to purchase new equipment in that time frame (either by choice or not). They won't have a choice, the machines will boot into Mac OS X and they will either: 1. Move to InDesign 2. Live with Quark in Classic
Moving to PC is not a real option. Think about it. if you move to PC and stay with Quark you still need to buy a whole new version of Quark (and don't tell me they give you a big break on the pricing, you better than that) and all of the plug-ins will need PC equivalents (if they even exist). Most of people who complain about moving off og Quark use the plug-ins excuse (I'll have to buy all new version for InDesign). What they don't realize is most of the plug-ins they rely upon for Quark have equivalent features in InDesign built-in.
My opinion is that moving to InDesign from a financial point-of-view is less expensive and puts you into a better position technology-wise in case your old PowerMac 9500 dies and you decide to buy a new PowerMac G(x)...
Better safe than sorry...
Speed issue: if you are having speed problem Adobe support database recommends turning off multi-line text composing.
One of my all-time favorite function in InDesign is the built-in preflight and packaging. It save me like an hour everytime I send data to the printer. Preflight still is a plug-in option for Quark? Haven't touched Quark in a long while so I wonder?
I'm kind of wishing that Adobe merge Illustrator and InDesign into one (or integrated two) like they did with Photoshop and ImageReady. But it may not be possible, huh? Considering today's processer power, they should just be able to put them together?
One of my all-time favorite function in InDesign is the built-in preflight and packaging. It save me like an hour everytime I send data to the printer. Preflight still is a plug-in option for Quark? Haven't touched Quark in a long while so I wonder?
I'm kind of wishing that Adobe merge Illustrator and InDesign into one (or integrated two) like they did with Photoshop and ImageReady. But it may not be possible, huh? Considering today's processer power, they should just be able to put them together?
Oh, and another one is ID2's PDF export functions.
I do both print and web from the same layout data, so, for me, there's no other choice than ID2. Quark's PDF export is usable now?
I do both print and web from the same layout data, so, for me, there's no other choice than ID2. Quark's PDF export is usable now?
InDesign vs. Quark speed issue
I'm willing to believe that, and Indesign is a wonderful program. I'm just saying that as far as I'm concerned THE major feature for me would be a faster program, instead of lots of new stuff.
It's already quite complete as it is, compared to XPress.
I'm willing to believe that, and Indesign is a wonderful program. I'm just saying that as far as I'm concerned THE major feature for me would be a faster program, instead of lots of new stuff.
It's already quite complete as it is, compared to XPress.