[baikevin]

I am considering buying Adobe Creative Suite.
Would appreciate opinions concerning InDesign vs. QuarkXPress.

[Dark Helmet]

InDesign is much better if it is ok with your printer use it over Quark anyday.

[KeriVit]

Just do it.

[Chuckit]

If you want the Creative Suite anyway, no real reason to go with Quark.

[davesimondotcom]

InDesign is gaining more and more traction with printers. And even if they don't take .indd's, EVERY printer worth going to will take a PDF (as generated by InDesign.)

Just do it. You know you want to.

[Kr0nos]

InDesign CS2 is very very good. It's come a long way. I've heard there are just a tiny few things that QuarkXpress does better, but overall, InDesign has got the edge. There is just sooo much you can do with this app (plus working with Photoshop and Illustrator is more fun than an out of control grease fire).

Here is a website you might find useful.

[Kevin]

Yeah InDesign is the way to go. Just switched myself after years of having to us Quark.

[andi*pandi]

in the art/design forum are many threads that argue this question--but my answer is InDesign all the way. I had to use quark last week and it was like a step back in time.

[Apfhex]

InDesign. This shouldn't even be a question, LOL. Some long time QXP users might argue for it, but I think it's a genuinely terrible piece of software these days. Bad GUI and REALLY buggy too. As davesimondotcom said, if you printer doesn't like INDD files you can make any kind of PDF with the tools you get from the Creative Suit.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Whoa! FUD galore!

QuarkXPress is much faster than InDesign and a very mature layout app. Version 7 is a universal binary, so it runs at native speed on the Intel Macs. It is very stable and reliable.

Who knows when InDesign and the other Adobe apps will run native on Intel.

That said, since ID is included in CS and you don't know Quark already, then ID should be the natural choice. That's what Adobe is banking on anyway. They wouldn't sell much InDesign if it wasn't bundled with Photoshop and the rest.

Finally, use Adobe Distiller to make PDFs for print. The PDF engine in ID is flakey and not reliable enough. That is to say, it will work in many cases but only Distiller works all the time. There is a reason Adobe devotes an entire app to make PDFs.

Personally, I'd choose Quark and so do most serious designers - while the freelancers and amateurs usually go for InDesign. The printer doesn't give a hoot, since everyone delivers PDFs anyway.

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

That is one of the Quark old timers that was mentioned.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

That is one of the Quark old timers that was mentioned.

And there's one of the freelance/amateur designers that was mentioned

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

And there's one of the freelance/amateur designers that was mentioned

cheers

W-Y

Oooh good one

At any rate, Quark must be the most HATED company and App i have ever seen. Most people hate them more than Microsoft. There is a good reason.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Most people hate them more than Microsoft. There is a good reason.

What reason is that, pray tell?

cheers

W-Y

[::maroma::]

Please go with InDesign. Quark is crap. Those who stick with it do it because of very specific reasons. Some stay with it because its what they know, and what they've known for years. Some stick with it because it has that one feature that InDesign doesn't that they need. InDesign's features are very nice and the PDF engine is just fine. I've been using it for a long time, making many many PDFs and I've never had an issue with it.

Also, if you happen to have to deal with the company for tech support or anything else, and you choose Quark, have fun in Hell. You will be abused. Adobe isn't all that great either, but its light years ahead of Quark in this area.

As others have said, if you're getting CS2 anyways just use InDesign. Its a no brainer.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

What reason is that, pray tell?

cheers

W-Y

Nasty registration process, slow updates, no transparency support, shitty PDF support, buggy, ugly, crappy customer support, TONS of features nobody is asking for (publish website), BAD compatibility with other apps. Don't act surprised by any of these.

[production_coordinator]

They both had advantages.

QuarkXPress is older, and is still the dominant layout application by far. While that may be changing (I'm not denying that it is), you will still see more designers using Quark.

Generally speaking, you will find InDesign users to be younger, and Quark users to be somewhat older. I've seen amazing designs from both applications.

IMHO, you are foolish (especially if you are a designer) to learn only one or the other. You should know both... and master one, if you ever expect to have a job.

Don't let anyone tell you Quark is dead. The market share is going down, but it is far from dead.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Nasty registration process

Enter a serial, it verifies once over the internet and you get an activation code. Sounds familiar.. Adobe CS2 anyone? Same thing.

slow updates

Quark was slow to figure out the Adobe/Microsoft approach. Make people pay often for the same thing. They seem to have cought on now. QXP 6 was released and updated shortly with 6.1 and finally 6.5 all within the span of a year (although as free updates) and now this summer QXP 7.

no transparency support

There is transparency support in QXP 7, quite good too!

shitty PDF support

It's on par with OS X. Imports PDF 1.5 just fine and exports PDFs. Call me when Adobe has perfect Quark support and I'll grant you that Quark should have perfect Adobe support.

buggy

About as buggy as InDesign.

ugly

Minimalistic and effective, with very few pallettes cluttering the screen real estate.

crappy customer support

Free on-line support for registered users. Not bad.

TONS of features nobody is asking for (publish website)

Too many features! Damn. How about just using the features you need?

BAD compatibility with other apps

Excellent Photoshop compatibility, perfect Distiller compatibility, works perfectly with EPS, PS, all major image formats and vector formats. Since this is an end-of-workflow app, that's all the compatibility it needs. Nothing needs compatibility with the QXP format, because it is the last format before pressing CMD-P and making a real-world copy of your work.

Don't act surprised by any of these.

Don't act surprised that not half of your claims are even half-true.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

They both had advantages.

QuarkXPress is older, and is still the dominant layout application by far. While that may be changing (I'm not denying that it is), you will still see more designers using Quark.

Generally speaking, you will find InDesign users to be younger, and Quark users to be somewhat older. I've seen amazing designs from both applications.

IMHO, you are foolish (especially if you are a designer) to learn only one or the other. You should know both... and master one, if you ever expect to have a job.

Don't let anyone tell you Quark is dead. The market share is going down, but it is far from dead.

Good post!

I agree with it 100%. Perhaps Quark users are generally older but I'm pretty sure Skywalker is older than 26

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

You're hilarious

That's not even worth replying to as you are a quark fanboy beyond all belief.

So far that is ONE positive user against how many here that have said it sucks. You must be right.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Nasty registration process

Oh, and the Adobe registration is better? IMHO, they both stink.

[QUOTE=Dark Helmet]slow updates[/quote

Ha... in 1997, while in college, I purchased QuarkXPress for $799. I've since paid $179 to get to where I am today (6.5).

Since 1999, if you purchased InDesign... you would have had to pay for upgrades 3 times by now.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

no transparency support

Some argue that a PAGE LAYOUT program shouldn't need transparency support. Also, if you need a special drop shadow, etc. etc. Perhaps you should do it in Photoshop.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

shitty PDF support

Seems to work just fine for what I need, along with my clients...

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

buggy

6.0, YES!, 6.1 yes, 6.5... seems to play nice.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

ugly

Granted...

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

crappy customer support

I've never needed it, so I can't comment.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

TONS of features nobody is asking for (publish website)

While I agree, I can't see this as a negative. It just pisses us off because there are things they COULD be focusing on.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

BAD compatibility with other apps.

What? Please explain.

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Don't act surprised by any of these.

Well, I for one am... granted, it's an ugly application. It has been buggy... seems OK now... but less buggier than Illustrator CS2 by far. The application hasn't changed much... which is fine for those of us that just want to get jobs done... not relearn a program we already know how to use.

I'm in NO WAY bashing InDesign... I see major advantages to using it... but don't count Quark out just yet.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

You're hilarious

That's not even worth replying to as you are a quark fanboy beyond all belief.

So far that is ONE positive user against how many here that have said it sucks. You must be right.

Thank you Skywalker, although I did not expect a reply as such. Your complaints were just the boilerplate/rubber-stamp complaints one hears about Quark. It's always the same and never substantiated or explained. Just "Quark is ugly", "Quark support sucks" etc etc. even though no professional app can be considered eye-candy or pretty (except maybe Exposure, which is very good looking!). They're usually just functional and non-distracting so people can focus on their work.

Quark is my choice of layout app, that is true, but I am no Quark fanboy. I use InDesign as well and know it just as well as Quark. Still, I find QXP to be the better tool. That's all it is anyway, neither app makes me a better designer. It is just a tool. A good designer can do good designs even with a mediocre layout app, wouldn't you agree? Incredible designs were made way before DTP. There was a time of pencils, paper and scissors and people still made fantastic designs.

It has been many years since InDesign was released and it is in its fifth iteration already. Quark only in its sixth and yet it has not killed Quark or dominated the market as Adobe hoped. The reason is simple. Quark is when all is said and done a damn fine app and it delivers. That is the only reason it still exists. Yes, hard to believe in CS land, but Quark *doesn't* suck. The proof is in the pudding. Quark still lives and it is still the most popular layour app today.

cheers

W-Y

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

You're hilarious

That's not even worth replying to as you are a quark fanboy beyond all belief.

So far that is ONE positive user against how many here that have said it sucks. You must be right.

Look at the audience here... generally younger.

Unlike YOU, I see the advantages to both sides of the fence. Talk about fanboy.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by production_coordinator

Look at the audience here... generally younger.

Unlike YOU, I see the advantages to both sides of the fence. Talk about fanboy.

This may be a shocker to YOU but I always use Quark. Not because I want to but because I have to on most projects.

So it is not like I am only in InDesign saying quark sucks.

Like most people here who use it say it sucks because they are stuck in the crap every day.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

This may be a shocker to YOU but I always use Quark. Not because I want to but because I have to on most projects.

So it is not like I am only in InDesign saying quark sucks.

Like most people here who use it say it sucks because they are stuck in the crap every day.

What version are you using? I use 6.5 Passport now.

Also, I am genuinely curious since you are an actual Quark user and would like to ask the following:

Asides from aesthetic things like your perceived ugliness of Quark, why would the registration process bug you specifically about Quark, what support issues have you had with Quark, what PDF issues are you having (import/export, PDF versions you're working with etc.) and what compatibility issues are you specifically thinking about?

Also, if you will ever upgrade to Quark 7, I think you'll be pleased. I've helped with the beta testing myself and you'll get a excellent transparency support and very good OpenType support

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

What version are you using?

Also, I am genuinely curious since you are an actual Quark user:

Started on Quark 4 working on 6.5 since it shipped.

I sat 8 hours a day in Quark for 2.5 years, it is not a good app. Everyone else in the office wanted to switch to InDesign after we made 1 issue in it 3x faster and it looked better, the printer was reluctant.

I remember reading when ton of HUGE magazine companies switched over to it (Oprah mag) and they all commented how much better the final result was using inDesign.

[olePigeon]

Make sure you get the educational discount.

CS2 without discount: ~$1,200
CS2 with ed discount: ~$375

[ort888]

You can get CS2 for $375 with an education discount?!??!

Really?

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by ort888

You can get CS2 for $375 with an education discount?!??!

Really?

Yep. Your college/university book store. We order ours through CDWG.

[ort888]

Holy crap! Sweet. I could go take a class at the community college and buy CS2 for about half the price of buying the retail version.

Not to be a thread hijacker, but what is the legality of that? Anyone know? If I buy it with an education discount and then use it to make money am I violating the user agreement? What if my wife was enrolled in school and bought it for me?

[andi*pandi]

I don't think it matters. It's not crippled in any way.

and with my edu discount... cs2 was about $200.

[::maroma::]

Originally Posted by ort888

Not to be a thread hijacker, but what is the legality of that? Anyone know? If I buy it with an education discount and then use it to make money am I violating the user agreement? What if my wife was enrolled in school and bought it for me?

Yes the user agreement on Education versions usually sates that it is not to be used for profit. That's why its the "Education" version. Only supposed to use it to learn off of. Its not crippled in any way, but that doesn't mean that the license is the same.

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

I don't think it matters. It's not crippled in any way.

and with my edu discount... cs2 was about $200.

yup. $199 for the premium suite through my campus computer store. good stuff.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Personally, I'd choose Quark and so do most serious designers - while the freelancers and amateurs usually go for InDesign. The printer doesn't give a hoot, since everyone delivers PDFs anyway.

That's not true. The majority of ad agencies I know of have made the switch some time ago. And that certainly qualifies as pro use.

I haven't used Quark for years and have no intention of ever going back.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

That's not true. The majority of ad agencies I know of have made the switch some time ago. And that certainly qualifies as pro use.

I haven't used Quark for years and have no intention of ever going back.

Ah but it is true. The majority still uses Quark. I don't doubt you, but what you say is just anecdotal. Market research shows Quark is more commonly used over InDesign. FWIW.

cheers

W-Y

[zerostar]

From a workflow point of view Indesign wins hands down once you get up to speed with it, having used Quark for almost 10 years and indesign for less than 1 I am no power user in IDD, but I will say that workflow and creativity has greatly improved.

Verion Cue kicks so much butt, getting the client involved and happy while keeping them out of the artists hair is the best thing that can happen.

[ironknee]

i loved quark...was one of the apps that i could show off my skills...um that was 4.X

the slowness of quark to get on the OSX train was a downer...quark 6.5 is ok...but i've sinced switched to indesign...it's very good. if you know ps, illustrator, then it will feel familiar...

my main gripe is the window management...could be cleaner...

btw, quark changed their logo again

[Weyland-Yutani]

I like the new *new* Quark logo.



PS: ironically Quark will be Intel native on the Mac a year before Adobe..

cheers

W-Y

[Mastrap]

I really dislike the new Quark logo. It's a visual mess, it doesn't print well when scaled down and it looks like a drinks coaster from the 70s. Too many 3D effects and shiny surfaces. I'm 100% sure that the logo wasn't created by a print designer.
A typical in house effort, approved by a committee. The Quark/Scottish Art Council debacle was embarrassing but still better than the abomination they're running with now.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Mastrap

I really dislike the new Quark logo. It's a visual mess, it doesn't print well when scaled down and it looks like a drinks coaster from the 70s. Too many 3D effects and shiny surfaces. I'm 100% sure that the logo wasn't created by a print designer.
A typical in house effort, approved by a committee. The Quark/Scottish Art Council debacle was embarrassing but still better than the abomination they're running with now.

It is in the same vein as the SE logo.



cheers

W-Y

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Personally, I'd choose Quark and so do most serious designers - while the freelancers and amateurs usually go for InDesign.

It's pretty silly to imply that using an entrenched monopoly rather than Thinking Different makes one a "serious designer." Yes, I use Quark at my full-time job and InDesign for freelance work — because my workplace already has a big investment in Quark (both in money and training time) from back when there wasn't really another option.

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

It is in the same vein as the SE logo.



cheers

W-Y

The sony one is 100% better. It also applies to the company more as they are a tech company making 3 dimensional products.

What is up with those white notches missing from the Quark logo?

[drmcnutt]

I think the reason Quark has a bad rep is that for many years it did not respond to the changing market trends (Open Type anyone? even the newest version does not fully support Open Type). Indesign came in and offered features that Quark traditionally passed on to its plugin partners. Less money for designers to put out as Indesign was cheaper than Quark and you didn't need to spend money on Xtensions for transparency, basic preflighting, and PDF support.

Quark has had some internal management changes and has tried to correct it's former perception. I think with the newer versions they have moved back toward things designers want like PDF workflow. I'm glad Quark is still around for the marketplace, but I still prefer Adobe's solution.

As far as Quark being a universal binary before Indesign, they learned their lesson from the crawl it took them to bring a native version to OSX--famously berated by Steve Jobs in his keynotes as the last major app to embrace OSX (even 5 was a Classic app). Adobe has announced they plan to make the next CS version ub and that is coming this Fall if I'm correct, not exactly a year after Quarks effort really.

Anyway for the original poster if you are going to purchase the suite CS2 then you can use Indesign for professional results.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by drmcnutt

As far as Quark being a universal binary before Indesign, they learned their lesson from the crawl it took them to bring a native version to OSX--famously berated by Steve Jobs in his keynotes as the last major app to embrace OSX (even 5 was a Classic app). Adobe has announced they plan to make the next CS version ub and that is coming this Fall if I'm correct, not exactly a year after Quarks effort really.

To my knowledge, neither Quark 7 nor CS 3 has a release date yet, so we can't really say. Somehow, though, that doesn't stop Quark fans from talking about Quark 7 like it's already been out for years.

[as2]

I do a little freelance design and have used both Quark and InDesign and find that they are both very good at what they do. Because I only do a small amount of freelance amends etc, I use whatever the lead designer has been using.

That said, my Dad has been running his own design company for the last 20 years, and the studio has very strong Quark roots, so most of the work gets done using Quark.

He does however use InDesign for some of the more recent jobs that have large numbers of images as he finds it more intuitive.

As was mentioned above - a serious designer will probably know how to use both. They will have a favourite, but that doesn't mean they will use that app exclusively.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

What is up with those white notches missing from the Quark logo?

What are you talking about?

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I like the new *new* Quark logo.

W-Y

You HAVE to be kidding me!

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by drmcnutt

I think the reason Quark has a bad rep is that for many years it did not respond to the changing market trends (Open Type anyone? even the newest version does not fully support Open Type).

I think the real reason may be people don't know what they're talking about or have fantastically strange expectations to Quark.

OpenType is another Adobe proprietary technology that Adobe has been trying to push. OT support in Quark was ok in Quark 6, but lacked Unicode support and therefore many OT benefits. However, OT is an emerging standard and most people still have PostScript fonts, not OT. You're criticizing Quark for not jumping on a proprietary Adobe font technology. I'm afraid the world doesn't work quite like that.

Indesign came in and offered features that Quark traditionally passed on to its plugin partners. Less money for designers to put out as Indesign was cheaper than Quark and you didn't need to spend money on Xtensions for transparency, basic preflighting, and PDF support.

You don't need a plugin for PDF support in Quark and transparency is fully featured in Quark 7. Nothing wrong with preflighting in either one. Preflighting worked fine in Quark 4, which was the first version I used. What's with the FUD?

PDFs by the way are another proprietary Adobe format. Not even OS X supports the latest PDF version and yet OS X is updated very often and has a very powerful PDF rendering machine built into the system. You'll need an Adobe client view PDF 1.6 I fear.

Bashing Quark for not supporting proprietary Adobe tech fast enough is silly.

Quark has had some internal management changes and has tried to correct it's former perception. I think with the newer versions they have moved back toward things designers want like PDF workflow. I'm glad Quark is still around for the marketplace, but I still prefer Adobe's solution.

I can tell you like Adobe by the way you seem to consider all their proprietary technologies an automatic standard in DTP. I'm glad they're both in business. Competition is good and has resulted in faster development of both Quark and ID. The users reap the benefit of healthy competition.

As far as Quark being a universal binary before Indesign, they learned their lesson from the crawl it took them to bring a native version to OSX--famously berated by Steve Jobs in his keynotes as the last major app to embrace OSX (even 5 was a Classic app).

Yes, they seem to have learned. Good for them and good for us. But has Adobe learned? It took them more than a year to make a native Photoshop for OS X. Now it's taking them more than a year to make any of their apps Universal Binary. Even their upcoming Photoshop Elements 4 will not be a Universal Binary. For that, I say Adobe sucks. There is no release date on CS3 btw.

Adobe has announced they plan to make the next CS version ub and that is coming this Fall if I'm correct, not exactly a year after Quarks effort really.

As I said, there is no release date on CS3 at the moment.

Anyway for the original poster if you are going to purchase the suite CS2 then you can use Indesign for professional results.

That, I agree with. There is nothing inherently wrong with ID, it does the same as Quark. Just slower.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Bottom line, if it is not important for the OP which app he chooses - Quark or ID - and is going to buy Adobe CS, then he should use ID. It doesn't sound like he's a pro, since we learn either/both Quark and ID there. He wouldn't have to ask about it.

So, buy CS and use ID already. It may not be the best app, but it comes free with Photoshop and the rest

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

But that is just it. It IS the best app.

I HAVE the latest version of Quark here, and the latest version of ID.

I'd rather use ID any day.