Quark vs Indesign

[covisio]

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]

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]

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]

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*]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

Indesign Winner

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.