Quark vs Indesign

Discussion in 'Design and Graphics' started by dogbone, Oct 22, 2005.

  1. macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #1
    I used to use Quark 4 at work and got pretty used to it. It was nice and clean and simple.

    I'm now having to learn Indesign CS because I can't afford Quark 6.

    I've only just started with InDesign and I don't like it much yet. My question is to anyone who has made the switch...

    Will I come to like InDesign eventually?
     
  2. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #2
  3. macrumors member

    Cleopatra

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Location:
    Norway
    #3
    I used Quark 4 two years ago - but hated that it did'nt have all the cool stuff that InDesign had. So I started to tray out InDesign on my own initative. Now in my new job I'm a happy user of InDesign, since they don't use Quark at all. :D
     
  4. thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    #5
    I recently started to use Quark 6.5 and InDesign CS2 at work. Mostly just playing around in the beginning to see what they can do and which I would like to devote more time into learning.

    I can honestly say without any hesitation that I will take InDesign anyday over Quark. I don't know anout the earlier versions of InDesign but I have toyed around with CS and CS2. ID is simply a vastly superior app in my opinion.

    From my understanding the next version of Quark is said to be a huge improvment over 6 but also from my understanding, many will not be going back to Quark. Partially from getting adjusted to ID and partially from Quark killing their customer base.

    When you are accustomed to one app and know many of the tricks and such, it's difficult and often frustrating to adjust to a new one. Hang in there, InDesign is a very polished app and I have no doubts that when you become more comfortable with it, you will be able to do things much faster, easier and with better results than you ever could with Quark 4....or even arguably 6.

    Also from my understanding, many companies are making the jump to ID and not looking back. Even if you do prefer Quark, knowing a bit about Id wouldn't hurt.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #6
    Desktop Professional won't go back to "Quack" ever!!!

    I started using Quark in the late '80s (v2.x) and touted it as the absolute page-layout program in the industry (Commercial Printing and Graphic Design) I then started to use ID 1.x when we became Adobe ASN members (Adobe Solutions Network) I now use ID CS2 and also have Quack 6.5 on my workstation. Once I got used to the interface and realized how similar to Photoshop, Illustrator, Go Live and the other Adobe products I have completely switched my views. Quark is Lame at best, there attempt to create PDF's directly from the app were pitiful at best and my peers in the industry will sometimes refuse them because of all the problems. Adobe owns the "Postscript" language and has it working well. Anything outside this in the way of third party apps or weak attempts to "chase" Adobe should be look at with disdain.
    But hey I've only been doing this for 35 years;) mare than 20 of it on computers, so take my opinion with a grain, or a stiff drink:D
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    cgratti

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2004
    Location:
    Central Pennsylvania, USA
    #7
    I switched from Quark 6 to inDesign.. Dont mind either now.....
     
  8. thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #8
    I'm liking the way it works the more I use it, the first thing I noticed was the logical way to flow text over different boxes. Quark always seems so clunky the way it did it.
     
  9. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Allston, MA
    #9
    I have and use both. I prefer to use InDesign, but sometimes I find it easier to do a certain project in Quark, since that's what I'm much more familiar with. I'm slowly becoming equally as comfortable in InDesign, it's just taking me longer than I thought it would.
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    narco

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2003
    Location:
    California.
    #10
    Oh no, here we go again!

    I pretty much end every Quark vs. InDesign debate the same way I end a Mac vs. Windows debate: it's all personal preference. Most (if not all) printers only work with PDFs now (depending on the job), so it's really about what you feel comfortable using, or what you can afford. Both programs make PDF files, so all is well.

    Fishes,
    narco.
     
  11. thread starter macrumors 68020

    dogbone

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Location:
    S33.687308617200465 E150.31341791152954
    #11
    I suppose the thing I miss the most about quark 4 was that I could delete empty text boxes by summoning up the little monster with the atomic bazooka to obliterate them.
     
  12. macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2002
    #12
    Quark was one of the major reasons that I didn't go into print design, that and not very good salaries of course. heheh.
     
  13. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #13
    Fine. So when we do eventually meet up, you'll be getting the drinks in then. :D
     
  14. macrumors newbie

    MaGiCSuN

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2005
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #14
    agreeing with narco

    i hate indesign, because i'm used to quark. I know most of the shortcut keys now .. and in indesign they are all different again (yes you can change them, but then when i get to work at some company i have to learn them all over again)

    it's all about what you are used to. I know people who are used to indesign and hate quark and vice versa.

    it's comparing apples and oranges in my opinion

    Love,
    Mirna
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #15
    I use InDesign on both Mac and PC, Quark on both, PageMaker on both, Publisher (PC only) and even Word (again on PC only) when I have to. The customer base in the commercial printing world is still stuck back in the "I can do it in Word, why can't you print it?? " era, so I'm forced to know all the apps they bring in. I have over the last few years learned and memorized all the different "key-commands" for all of them, and can go from one machine to another with ease... but my preference to work in leans to InDesign. That's a decision I've made after spending more than 10 years defending Quark, and once I learned ID and saw what it could for me I know cringe when I have to launch Quark and work on customer files. InDesign CS2 will open any Quark document (v.4.1 and earlier) with seamless ease, so I am also in the habit and or practice of opening all my old Quark docs into ID and saving them that way:cool:
     
  16. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    #16
    Quark vs. InDesign

    I am 150% happy with InDesign cs2. It is the best... But I can't say that I don't like Quark. I love adobe products, quark, and macromedia. But the good thing about them all is that they keep each other in check (except macromedia and adobe are now one company). But the advantage of having all these programs is that they keep the price more competitive and better features... There are a perfect example of it...

    late 80's pagemaker ruled the world....
    then cam quark in the late 90's and it ruled the world for most of the 90's...
    this caused adobe to rethink their plan and develop pagemaker from the ground up, thus the birth of indesign...

    Now that indesign is starting to dominate it is getting quark to get off their butt's and better their product (which was static for the longest time because they felt they had no competition.)

    Now Indesign has the best, quark will be releasing version 7 shortly and it will be a lot better or the best. Who knows. It will go back and forth. I am anxious to see the products yet to come in the near future... Quark might be the king again the next decade, maybe indesign, maybe another that is not yet invented. Competition is good!

    P.S. That little monster dude that destroys the boxes still exists in version 6, I am not sure about 6.5 though. I imagine so.
     
  17. Retired

    jefhatfield

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2000
    #17
    from not being a designer and not knowing too much about the products, i took a class that utilized a few different softwares and the most difficult to use was quark

    i found adobe products to be much more intuitive, though not as much as applework or microsoft office products, and the adobe products worked the same and when the class switched to a project in quark, it bamboozled some of us, especially the beginners

    quark may still be the standard as i have been hearing graphic designers say for a long time now, perhaps always, and i am glad that i won't have to master it
     
  18. macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #18
    I have to say it again, if my wife was not already the "Master Designer" using Quark, as a total newbie the fact that CS2 has almost everything you need would "convert" me to being completely loyal to ID. I mean, we have 2 machines to load up. How much will that cost? I still don't have the latest Quark on my machine and am just learning the basics now with VTC... but I just today read to her this thread and complained that I wanted us to switch to ID.

    Her answer? "I use Quark, and have my brain totally around Quark. Deal with it." Oh well, she's the boss! :D

    But for much larger newspapers etc I understand that they are saving hundreds and hundreds of dollars per machine just sticking with ID, purely from a software cost POV. What are others here making of future trends for Quark fees versus the fact that ID comes with all your other design software in CS2, cheaper than Quark is on it's own? Any rumours?
     
  19. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Allston, MA
    #19
    The overwhelming majority of publications still use Quark. In fact in some of the smaller dailys, there are people running archaic versions of Quark on System 7 or OS 8. They'll keep using that outdated equipment and software until it doesn't work anymore... and if that hasn't happened yet, god only knows when it will.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #20
    But when Quark was taking too long to convert their software over to OS X, my futurist mate Craig at http://futuretrends.tv/ said he was at a forum where the presenter asked,
    "Hands up here if you are sick of overpriced Quark arrogantly forcing us to work in Classic, and are thinking of switching to Indesign?"

    Overwhelmingly the whole audience stuck up their hands.

    Smaller papers are one thing, but I have it on good authority that the Sydney Morning Herald works mainly in CS2. What's it liek where you are?
     
  21. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Location:
    Allston, MA
    #21
    I can confirm that as of a few months ago, the New York Times still uses Quark. In most cases it boils down to Quark having a stranglehold over major American papers by offering them special deals to keep them from switching to InDesign, not to mention that the time and cost that would be necessary to retrain the designers with InDesign holds many larger operations back from switching.

    And the smaller ones won't upgrade anything until it breaks.
     
  22. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #22
    I agree.

    In my past job of doing ads for a local company, i started with using MS Publisher. Yes, MS Publisher. In order to get the ads accepted by the newspaper (Washington Post), my first ads were printed on glossy stock and sen to them for final publishing.

    I did find work arounds that allowed me to do PDF's (via doing a postscript file, then to Acrobat ,then to Quite A Box of Tricks). Then I found InDesign. InDesign allowed me to do a major four color insert for Black Friday 2004.

    Over the years I had opportunities to play with Quark. But I never felt at ease wit it compared to the "consumer" page layout programs.
     
  23. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #23
    You hit on an issue for "printers". My printer (when I headed the "advertising" group for my company), hated when some within the company gave them Word files that passed as DTP. They were more than willing to work with me on MS Publisher files.

    There is a great need for for compatibility with mainstream "publishing" and the smaller "shop/office".
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    eclipse

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #24
    can you ever see Open Source being the standard?
     
  25. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #25

    As far as Quark is concerned, I think it depends on what your first experiences with it are and how you are taught to use it. Much power use of Quark depends on keyboard shortcuts that are invisible and not displayed as menu items at all.

    When I first started out, I was lucky enough to work through Quark's official structured training so learned it in the manner that it was intended.

    Using it now is like breathing for me: second nature. That's not to say that I particularly enjoy some its quirks, atrociously-implemented features and its bugginess... but I have my workarounds which enable me to stay in a comfort zone which in turn, facilitates creativity and enables me to hit my deadlines and get stuff to press.
     

Share This Page