[G-mac]

Hi!

I'm in the midst of launching a new newsletter/magazine and was wondering what desktop publishing program I should use? I am working pretty much alone at this point and would like to use something simple, yet mainstream. I know that Quark has a solid foothold in the publishing industry, but I do like Adobe's software (Photoshop, etc.). Will one of them cause me any problems (incompatibility, etc.) when working with printing companies, etc. or with other publishing companies?

I'm ready to purchase one of them to use in OS X, but would like to spend a few hundred dollars on one that I will find useful. Thanks for any suggestions!

[mitchell_pgh]

I would recommend Quark. InDesign is starting to pick up momentum, but is still unsupported by many printers. It's true that you have more unique options in InDesign 2.0 (like the ability to use native Photoshop files with transparencies) but it just isn't there yet. I know of a few magazines that use InDesign, but they are far and few between and usually have a VERY serious relationship/contract with their printer.

PS, If you need any help please feel free to email me: mitchell_pgh@hotmail.com

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: mitchell_pgh ]

[philzilla]

yep, what he said. i wanted to use InDesign for the magazine covers i design, but the printer uses Xpress, so i had to go the ugly route. bah.

[Corys]

I would say use quark for now, but I wouldn't dismiss Indesign.
version 2 is looking a lot better and has a ton of features that quark can't even touch..

but, being on the printer side and not the design side, I have to be sure indesign files will RIP and trap properly.
I played with some files the other day that used drop shadows, transperancy <sp?>, parent PSD files.
it Rip'd and trapped properly. I think if adobe has solved a lot of the issues that printers deal with, you might find it supported by more printers/color houses.

Now they just need to fix AI10 and AI9, what a nightmare those programs are..ugh.

[MikeM32]

Having experience in the printing-end also I'd say you're safest bet is QuarkXPress also, but as Corys mentionned above don't dismiss InDesign just yet. InDesign has many similarities to it's other Adobe counterparts in terms of it's UI (User Interface) which makes it very simple to use. It also has the ability to even "mimic" QuarkXPress' keyboard shortcuts for those making the transition.

The problem with InDesign is more on the output end, and that's what you're printer will be dealing with...output, output, output (it's like a mantra ) Perhaps many of the output issues have been smoothed-out since InDesign 2 came out, but I know I experienced many issues under version 1.5.2.

For page layout, QuarkXPress is "the" industry standard for almost all the best publishing/printing/pre-press and service bureau businesses.

Mike

[G-mac]

Hi all!

Thanks for all the great feedback! I'm going with Quark. I definitely want to make things as painless as possible for both me and the printers. Thanks again!

[mitchell_pgh]

BUT, on the down side, Quark is --->SO<--- slow with their updates. Who knows when we are going to get around to porting an OSX native version. Version 5 of Quark is still a ways away, and it's NOT going to ship with an OSX version day one. Version 6 of Quark should come out sometime in 2010.

InDesign 2 is ready today for OSX...

(I would call around to some of the printers, you may find out that some have it)

[climber]

MacCentral has some quotes from a Quark spokesperson Glen Turpin. It sounds to me they are not even serious about OSX until they have 5.0 out the door in all markets. They have not decided on upgrade pricing because they don't even know what changes or additions they will make.

This is unacceptable. Mac OSX is currently the "default OS" on new Macs They release a product so late that it is not even supported on the current OS.

Check to see if your printer could support files from InDesign. If they don't right now I bet they will within a few weeks as everyone including myself makes the jump and purchases InDesign.

[godzookie2k]

Every printer I've used in the last year or so has supported InDesign with no problems as yet. However, in regards to quark, so few designers have moved over to X I don't think its really *that* detrimental that Quark 5 isn't X compatible. Then again, I might be wrong about my assumption on the number of designers (print) that have gone X.

A large number of Interactive Designers have gone X that I know (myself included) but there is just zero (except indesign) software out there for print designers, plus the lack of printer drivers...and the crappy font management solutions (see other thread ). I really don't blame Quark for not having X as a priority.


Nick

[macthemes]

Originally posted by Corys:
<STRONG>
Now they just need to fix AI10 and AI9, what a nightmare those programs are..ugh.</STRONG>

What issues are you having with AI10?

Cheers,
Dave MacLachlan
Illustrator Eng.
Adobe Systems Inc.

[Mac Guru]

However, in regards to quark, so few designers have moved over to X I don't think its really *that* detrimental that Quark 5 isn't X compatible.

My thoughts exactly... I have no reason to use OS X and do not plan to use in anytime in the near future since it is just so incompatible with the creative design market. I'm ashamed that Apple would allow such an abandonment of one of thier key purchase markets, but hey, OS 9.2 does what we need it to do and will for a while longer.

Mac Guru

[baryonyx]

Originally posted by Mac Guru:
I'm ashamed that Apple would allow such an abandonment of one of thier key purchase markets, but hey, OS 9.2 does what we need it to do and will for a while longer.

My thoughts as well. OS X is right now a bit of a disaster as regards the publishing/design field. Type-1 font support for many people is problematic at best. Many apps just aren't there. Quark is the most notable, but I'm hearing horror stories about Illustrator 10. Go over to Mac FixIt and they're all railing against Aqua. I like it, personally, but I guess there are enough people who don't for it to be a problem.

One other feature that recommends Quark over InDesign right now--especially as concerns newsletters, which are often two-color--is the multi-ink spot color feature Quark has. You can create many variants of a hue with just black and a spot color. very nice if you know what you're doing.

That said, you could still work in InDesign and be compatible with any printer around merely by saving as PDF. Most large printer these days have or are now switching over to DSC 2.0 or PDF. The smaller shops will probably follow suit if they haven't already.

Personally, I've been trying to switch over to InDesign, but it feels so awkward after having used Quark for the last dozen years or so. Younger designers won't have that problem I guess.

Andy

[MikeM32]

This is a classic argument because you have those designers who want to jump all over OSX and they're mostly pissed that Quark isn't, so they're jumping (or have already jumped to) InDesign. Then there's those designers who aren't trying to keep-up with the operating system and only demand what is required from thier applications to get thier work done. I'm not here to make judgements over who is right or wrong in both instances.

I will interject some personal opinion and experience on those issues, however. I've tried to play the "keep up with the OS" game and have been burned pretty hard with incompatability and performance issues. At the end of the day it's really more important to me that I'm getting my work done efficiently and getting $paid$ for the job. As a graphics professional I've learned the hard way that running the newest and latest revision of the MacOS isn't nearly as important to me.

To stretch the point even further, if I had to sit down at an x86 Windows OS box and work, I would (I wouldn't like it, but whatever gets me $paid$). It's irrelevant to my profession as a graphic artist. What I'm trying to say is it's the applications and not the OS they run on that are tantamount to success in this field. Some just prefer various page layout app's Quark, InDesign and (excuse me while I barf) PageMaker.

Mike

[baryonyx]

Originally posted by MikeM32:
What I'm trying to say is it's the applications and not the OS they run on that are tantamount to success in this field.

Hmm, I think you'd get a pretty spirited argument about that from a lot of folks. I personally have found the Mac to be the better OS by far for graphics. Windows is just a pain. I mean, you can do it, but why expend the effort when the alternative is a) the standard in the field and b) easier?

Andy

[joestitzlein]

What issues are you having with AI10?

Cheers,
Dave MacLachlan
Illustrator Eng.
Adobe Systems Inc.

hi dave check this out for my quick observations of the ai10 tryout:

osx native-great. however, it runs rather slowly at times on my g4/733 in osx. also, when i drag vector objects, there is an after image, ghost effect on the edge of boxes, for instance. i notice a double highlight flash on the menu bar under os9. there is also a 5 second wait for the print box to appear after hitting command p. interestingly, dragging by hand is indeed snail like, but scrolling with the mouse wheel doesn't cause the document to hang. it will be interesting to see how 10.2 affects these issues.

nice interface. looks great, yet unobtrusive. love the icon-except the plug in folder looks awful. under os9, double clicking on title bars of palette do not collapse them. this works in osx. also, the annoying shadows on the osx palletes have got to go. this even happens when you have dialog boxes nested together in one long palette. is this a problem with the carbon api's? also, the half aqua, half classic "try" splash screen in the demo looks amateurish-it uses aqua buttons with badly drawn alpha channels under os 9, and the under x the aqua buttons use chicago instead of lucida grande. also, the select menu under os9 has an extraneous list divider at the bottom of the menu. there isn't any zoom feedback when using the magnifying lens under osx. the zooming itself (os9) feels faster in ai10 than ai8 in a complex document, nice! also, in osx, adobe went to the trouble of having ai10 organize fonts in groups like type reunion used to do.

the adobe ui team should consider adding functionality to the dock icon. perhaps recent documents, open new document, etc.

quits cleanly when i force quit in os9. this is unusual amongst classic apps. however, locks up when copying and pasting to and from version 8 (unusual activity i know).

one bug that remains from version 9, when you have transparency and solid non transparent type in a document, and then retro save as version 8, the type becomes outlined when you open it in ai8. the type remains type if you don't have transparency.

the startup time is satisfactory under both operating systems.

overall, i'd hold off until the next rev.

joe

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: joestitzlein ]

[Corys]

Originally posted by macthemes:
<STRONG>

What issues are you having with AI10?

Cheers,
Dave MacLachlan
Illustrator Eng.
Adobe Systems Inc.</STRONG>

probably my biggest issues with AI10 right now is-
the error I get when saving a EPS to a win2K file server (leaves invisible files so you can't overwrite an existing EPS file) only solution I have found it to save to the desktop then copy over

and I am still having a lot of issues with our automatic trapping, just get a lot of weird stuff, stuff I don't get with AI8, Freehand, quark or pagemaker..

the program itself is just slow, in OSX or OS9, my production machine is not workhorse (G3 450) but still, on the G4-733 at home, it still crawls..

for me AI10 is just not a productive program, when a AI10 job hits prepress, it's no longer a profit (in prepress) for us. which is hard to explain to the boss..
Assuming you can call the Prepress Dept a profit center