Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

G-mac · Feb 1, 2002, 09:56 PM

Hi all!

Just wanted to know if any of you had the chance to use InDesign 2.0 yet. I was curious whether or not performance is good in OS X. Is there much improvement over 1.5, except for OS X compatibility? Also, what build number is the new version? Thanks.

baryonyx · Feb 2, 2002, 08:17 AM

InDesign 2.0 is pretty awesome.

The first thing I did was convert a QuarkXpress 4.1 document over. It was the cover of a fashion trade show directory--mostly a high-res TIFF, with some text done in Quark. It came over quite nicely, with the exception of some type that needed to be resized. The first thing I noticed, though, was how much better it looked overall in InDesign. It previews as well as Photoshop. Very nice.

Speed-wise, it's not as responsive as QuarkXpress 4.x is in OS 9, but I soon found myself working quite quickly. I know there were lags, but they didn't bother me too much. I'm sure the artiste types will complain--they always do.

I even made a press-ready PDF directly from InDesign. It was very fast--much faster than Distiller in OS 9. It threw me, though. The final PDF file size was under 2MB. Somehow it managed to compress a 42MB image file, embed all the fonts (not too many, admittedly) and presumably save all the information necessary to ouput at high resolution for a printing press and stick it in a file that was 1.7MB in size. I am dumbfounded. Distiller doesn't do that--not with those final file sizes. Makes me suspicious.

I've been using QuarkXpress for the last dozen years or so and I have to say I am very impressed with InDesign 2.0. Wow.

G-mac · Feb 2, 2002, 11:47 AM

Thanks for the input!

I presently use Quark, but think I'll be purchasing InDesign because I just can't stand switching back and forth between OS 9 and X. I would like to stay in X and Quark hasn't delivered yet. The PDF feature sounds great.

baryonyx · Feb 3, 2002, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by G-mac:
I presently use Quark, but think I'll be purchasing InDesign because I just can't stand switching back and forth between OS 9 and X. I would like to stay in X and Quark hasn't delivered yet. The PDF feature sounds great.

Don't count on Quark delivering a native X version of Xpress this calendar year, I don't care what they say.

Be forwarned: as great as InDesign is, most production workflows are geared towards outputting QuarkXpress files. You are well advised to test InDesign docs with your prepress facility in advance of that big job you're planning to do with it. I'm hearing stories that some service bureaus are having trouble ripping InDesign docs. I understand Adobe is fully willing to help those facilities that are. It may end up being up to you to put them in contact with each other. Good luck!

Andy

NDA · Feb 3, 2002, 11:11 PM

InDesign 2.0 is wonderful. Where I work, we have had no problems getting InDesign files to rip, but it's important to note that I work in a controlled environment with regards to fonts and colors, and our prepress guys are top notch. Your actual mileage may vary.

The PDF feature is great, and it makes PDFs faster than Distiller.

mitchell_pgh · Feb 7, 2002, 03:43 AM

[BQ]Somehow it managed to compress a 42MB image file, embed all the fonts (not too many, admittedly) and presumably save all the information necessary to ouput at high resolution for a printing press and stick it in a file that was 1.7MB in size.[/BQ]

No way, unless it turned a tiff into a JPG or something crazy like that...

kgforce · Feb 7, 2002, 03:57 AM

I've had ID 2.0 for a couple of days now. All I have to say is "WOW!". I tried ID 1.0 when it came out, but put it back on the shelf... it wasn't ready for prime time.

I've been using Quark for 10 years, but now I'm dumping it in favor of InDesign. For anyone that uses Quark, PhotoShop and Illustrator, it's a snap to learn and use. The day after I got it I produced a full color mailer no problem. Plus, I was able to do a lot of things that would have taken hours longer, and could never have been done in Quark.

The printing company I use has accepted PDF files for a while, so I don't anticipate any problems getting high-quality output.

baryonyx · Feb 7, 2002, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
<STRONG>

No way, unless it turned a tiff into a JPG or something crazy like that...</STRONG>

Believe it. I even went on the InDesign forum on Adobe's site and asked around about it. The general consensus was that it's entirely possible. The 42MB TIFF that compressed down so far had only a few colors in it--mostly reds and purples with some type. I was told that simple images like that are likely to compress down pretty far. I haven't tried anything more complex yet, but I will say that InDesign's PDF feature is definitely faster than Distiller.

Andy

DeepDish · Feb 9, 2002, 03:05 PM

I am going to get flamed for this statement.

InDesign feels like PageMaker to me.

I just bought InDesign 2.0. Have played with it in both 9 and X.

I love it so far. However, I know Quark inside and out. I can't stand Pagemaker. InDesign feels like PM and I don't like that.

I know, I know, it is all about which program you learned out and such.

I have had problems with InDesign creating dropshadows. It seems to disport the the colors below the shadows.

PDF creation in ID2 is great.

I will start to produce in both Q4 and ID2. I will have to get over my distaste of the PM feel in ID2.

DeepDish

MikeM32 · Feb 9, 2002, 07:26 PM

I'm not going to flame you, but I see very little correlation between InDesign and PageMaker. As someone who's used Quark mostly I simply *hated* having to use PageMaker. But when I tried InDesign 1.5.2 I really liked it, plus you can even change the preferences to semi-match Quark's keyboard shortcuts. PageMaker didn't even *have* very extensive keyboard shortcut options. So in pagemaker like 99% of my work getting a job ready for production was friggin mousing up to the top menu constantly which is *extremely* counter-productive.

I'm really quite surprised that Adobe hasn't dumped PageMaker yet though, and even *worse* actually came out with an upgrade

InDesign is literally ages ahead of PageMaker. I still swear by Quark as it's pretty-much what I've learned on, and indeed still more widely used in the production end of the business (printing, pre-press, etc., etc.).

I suppose the only reason Adobe would keep PageMaker alive is for the embedded PageMaker user base, and so they can offer a sort of "consumer versus professional" page layout option (I.E. PageMaker versus InDesign).

Mike

[ 02-09-2002: Message edited by: MikeM32 ]

DeepDish · Feb 9, 2002, 10:34 PM

I guess the bulk of my "InDesign feels like Pagemaker" comment is seeing the way the text and picture boxes look and feel in InDesign. Again, I rarely use PM, I use Quark. Usually when I did get PM files, the creator did a crap job, didn't collect fonts and used internet images. After awhile, just seeing a PM file, I would get the creepies. When I get a Quark file turned in, 95% of the time a pro created it and I would have no problem. PM is a good program, I know that. But I learned to hate it because of the files that were turned into me created on it. The past two years, I just turn the PM files into .pdfs, import the .pdfs into AI or PS, then import into Quark.

From what I have tried of ID2, I am loving it. Couple of concerns with my printer, but will send a couple of test files later this month. Plus the drop shadow over color.

I do wish ID2 allowed my to add style to text such a beveling like I can in PS. Plus, I would love to be able to import .psd into ID2 and tell ID2 which layers to include.

l008com · Feb 10, 2002, 01:09 AM

I learned on Quark, and I love InDesign 2. Quark is going bye bye. The main feature I wish InDesign had is a Save For Web option. There's no easy way to get a really good screen quality image of a document in InDesign and especially Quark. In this day and age, saving your doc as a jpg or gif as a preview so any computer in the world could view it in a browser would be a good feature. I've done two actual projects in InDesign so far, and in both, a save for web would have helped me along.

baryonyx · Feb 10, 2002, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by l008com:
There's no easy way to get a really good screen quality image of a document in InDesign and especially Quark. In this day and age, saving your doc as a jpg or gif as a preview so any computer in the world could view it in a browser would be a good feature. I've done two actual projects in InDesign so far, and in both, a save for web would have helped me along.

InDesign offers at least two options. You could save your document as HTML--and accept HTML's limitations layout-wise. That's more for repurposing than anything else, but it's there in a pinch.

Better yet, save as PDF. Any computer in the world can view it, as long as they have the Acrobat plug-in.

Andy

jeffhot · Feb 11, 2002, 11:31 AM

I am digging InDesign 2.0, but the version I have makes some wierd PDFs. First if you use transparency, you get a much smaller PDF if it is exported in Acrobat 5.0 format rather than 4, but that is just because 5 can do transparencies better. Other Apps, like Preview, can't view 5 documents correctly though.

But when I make a PDF, random text and objects get bounding boxes around them that are not in the document. I cannot figure out how to get rid of this, but it may just be a feature of the build I have. "Build Number 340 Release Change #98152 doesn't exactly sound like the retail version to me, but I don't know. Has anyone else had issues like this? It happened with an InDesign 1.5 document that I started working with in 2.