Quark vs Indesign

[Blue Velvet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...a lot of the features in Quark 6 feel out of place (web design?)

I certainly won't disagree with that.

 

[dpaanlka]

who brought this thread back from the dead

 

[chaosbunny]

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]

Quark Vs InDesign

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]

InDesign is the FUTURE!

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]

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]

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 (

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]

-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]

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]

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]

As a professional graphic designer in the "field".....

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 (

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[SwiftLives]

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

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]

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]

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...