[LightWaver-67]

Quick example:

(Sorry for the large images)

Below is a file (early comp) that I sent to a client for approval of design direction... as well as two exports to .PDF files version 4 & 5 respectively.

First... the ORIGINAL: (screenshot)


----------

Second... an export to Ver.4 PDF (screenshot)
Notice the bounding-box lines and the flow of the text that got disrupted.


----------

Finally... an export to Ver.5 PDF (screenshot)
Notice the transparency of the grid & gradients are ignored and the bounding boxes are filled w/ gray.


----------

Far from perfect... but still... the workflow in ID2 works well for me.

[voodoo]

Are you converting to pdf directly from ID there or using Distiller?

If you are using the ID pdf rendering, have you tried saving as postscript and pdf it with Distiller?

[LightWaver-67]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Are you converting to pdf directly from ID there or using Distiller?

If you are using the ID pdf rendering, have you tried saving as postscript and pdf it with Distiller?

No Distiller involved... that was my whole point, that on-it's-own... ID2 does NOT do a good job creating a .PDF (as most apps also do not).

Distiller is STILL a necessary tool in the toolbox.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Distiller is STILL a necessary tool in the toolbox.

Oh I agree 100%. The built in features to make pdfs can be flakey. Not only in the Adobe apps themselves, but in OS X. Cuz like you all know *any* OS X native app can print out to pdf. Neat, but far from perfect. Distiller is a must.

[zubro]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I'd like to see a show of hands of how many people in this thread are agency employed full time and how long they have been working designers. Just so I know who's opinion I should bother reading, thanks.

I m one of them... I suppose...
stated 14 years ago...

Why? Because I am not going to continue to bother participating in a thread if I'm discussing QuarkXpress vs InDesign with a bunch of uninformed, sophomores taking their first design class who have never been on a press check or know what the hell a color separation is.

Right! On my side my main problem is amatures sending me qxd files with fkd up fonts, etc... and to waist my time doing pdf for custommer and press...
In that manner ID is easyer to work with because it works under X and even an amature can do OK.

QuarkXpress is the industry standard for a reason. It is fast, stable, runs on any goddamn power pc ever made, and under 16 megs of ram, and quickly, it is intuitive, and does the job very well without any printer issues whatsoever. It does anything you'd need to do for print work, and it does it on any machine you can find. This is important.

Totally right there, no doubt about it!
But I cant afford to work with Co. from the stoneage, with all the respect that I have for them...

Do you know how much it would cost to upgrade....say, a 10 person studio to brand new G4's with 500 megs of ram, and osx *just* to run InDesign? A ****ing bucketload. And you need a brand new G4 because I guarantee you ID doesn't run remotely less than frozen mollassas on any other box. And here, let me give you a tip. Most design studios are running very old out of date hardware, and doing flip fantastic work with it, because quark runs on anything. You don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars updating machines and operating systems and hardware. I mean, who has time for that?

I don t but take the new apps as they come and LOVE how much they can do and simplify my workflow!
Exit the files on superunstable Syquest to deliver in the rain on a sunday PM to the printer that finally doesnt have a 200Mo Reader!
PDF on my desk sent in seconds to Germany!
I LOVE IT!!!

So, I'm done with this discussion now I think, because it seems like this thread is populated by the inexperienced, who have launched Xpress and disliked the start up screen enough to form their opinions of the program.

So see U, and Respest to the old school! Forever!

Yours friendly,

Germain.

[MusicalTone]

I have been using Quark for the past 7 years for magazine/print publishing and recently switched to ID. On the whole I prefer ID much better, although I do miss some of the Quark interface features and short cuts. Funny enough I am currently working on a job that is going to PDF for download on the web and find the PDF export options in ID a bit basic. Frustratingly, Distiller only works under os9 so I am a bit stuck until Acrobat 6 comes out (next week so I hear), as I am OSX only. For some reason the text is not as crisp exporting from ID to PDF as I would like. Dont know what the issue is, havnt got time to look into it, will probably just upgrade to 6 and hope that solves it.

By the way, for the price of QuarkXpress you can buy the entire Adobe Studio (PhotoShop, ID, Ilustrator, Acrobat, GoLive ...)

A.

ps. anyone know of any good pdf aps for osx?

[patmcfar8]

I've been using Quark since '94 and ID since '01. At the agency I used to work at we were still in OS 9 and used Quark exclusively. Then I got a new job and had the opportunity to buy all new Mac's running OS X. That's when I made the switch to ID, and now that's all I use.

I miss Quark. I knew it like the back of my hand, but I can honestly say that ID is more intuative, especially if you are already familiar with Adobe's other products.

Here's my advice for ya:

If you are used to MS Office for layout (Yuck!) and plan on using Photoshop as well, then ID is probably the better bet for you. If you're using OS X and only producing PDF's for the web then ID is for you.

If you're going to be doing large scale publications, working with print shops and are still using OS 9, then Quark is for you.

I can't wait for Quark 6 to come out, BUT even then I doubt I'll switch back. I imagine there are a lot of designers in the same boat as myself. I think Quark seriously dropped the ball on this one, waiting so long for OS X support. It will be interesting...

And I completely agree with what others before me mentioned. ID makes crap PDF's. If I'm making a PDF for printing, I use Distiller, but if I'm just making a PDF to be e-mailed for approval, then I'll use ID. And I think for just web publication, ID should make adequate PDF's.

All in all, I think for your personal situation ID is the better choice. And definately get the Adobe Design pack. It's a great deal on ID, AI, PS and Acrobat. Good luck.

[huck skyystyler]

Originally posted by godzookie2k:
I'd like to see a show of hands of how many people in this thread are agency employed full time and how long they have been working designers. Just so I know who's opinion I should bother reading, thanks.

Why? Because I am not going to continue to bother participating in a thread if I'm discussing QuarkXpress vs InDesign with a bunch of uninformed, sophomores taking their first design class who have never been on a press check or know what the hell a color separation is.

QuarkXpress is the industry standard for a reason. It is fast, stable, runs on any goddamn power pc ever made, and under 16 megs of ram, and quickly, it is intuitive, and does the job very well without any printer issues whatsoever. It does anything you'd need to do for print work, and it does it on any machine you can find. This is important. Do you know how much it would cost to upgrade....say, a 10 person studio to brand new G4's with 500 megs of ram, and osx *just* to run InDesign? A ****ing bucketload. And you need a brand new G4 because I guarantee you ID doesn't run remotely less than frozen mollassas on any other box. And here, let me give you a tip. Most design studios are running very old out of date hardware, and doing flip fantastic work with it, because quark runs on anything. You don't need to spend tens of thousands of dollars updating machines and operating systems and hardware. I mean, who has time for that?

So, I'm done with this discussion now I think, because it seems like this thread is populated by the inexperienced, who have launched Xpress and disliked the start up screen enough to form their opinions of the program.

Felt I had to register to put in a little note, I too am a designer, I have a degree in Graphic Design, and also have lot's of experience in interactive design/animation/motion graphics and video.I run the art department of a firm I do not care to mention. I do not work in a large magazine production environment which I know involves large and complicated workflows, but my point is a lot of the previous arguing boils down to what TYPE of designer you are, and how adept you are at picking up new applications...

I used to use Quark Xpress all day every day to put together relatively complicated image heavy spreads. I switched to indesign for cash reasons mainly, realising that I could get the Adobe Design collection and upgrade other apps to newer versions at a price not far off that of upgrading xpress. I tried out the demo of ID1.5 thought it was nice, some things were different, but not too annoyingly so. Waited for ID2 bought it and ran both ID and Xpress together for a bit, then slowly moved the existing documents over; some 3-400 different files it worked fine.

I now use ID all the time, I thought I'd miss Xpress, but I don't feel I miss it at all.

Most designers now have to be proficient in a lot of different areas, say motion graphics, or web design, animation, for these types of work a fast machine with a large screen or two are pretty handy, which makes that the fact Xpress still runs in 16megs of RAM pretty redundant.

Best advice I can give is to try both, and see which suits you best.

[Nathan Adams]

ID here
many reasons, but PSD placing is more than reason alone. Being able to use a PSD's transparancy is eons ahead of damn clipping paths.

and voodoo, i've never seen anyone more blinkered and biased in their ramblings, ever.
and you're the one calling people zealots?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Nathan Adams:

and voodoo, i've never seen anyone more blinkered and biased in their ramblings, ever.
and you're the one calling people zealots?

I'm biased because I have used both QXP 4 and ID2? Is that why I'm biased? Or is it because you don't agree with me?... Look, your opinion means the world to me but it seems so easy to ignore. So I will.

The fact is, like so many (including me) have demonstrated is that there isn't really anything ID has over XPress that makes a difference enough for one to switch from XPress to ID. Sure, try out which one you like better if you are starting out. On the other hand if you are using XPress now, the only good reason to swith to ID is because you personally hate Quark or XPress or both. That seems to have been the major incentive for most switchers. Which is fine - It doesn't make ID better than XPress or more popular or the industry standard. Use whatever floats your boat.

F.Y.I. : Zealot is a fanatically committed person.

I am not fanatically committed to anything. Especially software applications.

[benb]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I am not fanatically committed to anything.

This may be true, but you are fanatically opposed to anything Adobe.

[::maroma::]

Originally posted by voodoo:
The fact is ... that there isn't really anything ID has over XPress that makes a difference enough for one to switch from XPress to ID.

...

Use whatever floats your boat.

Wow, you managed to completely contradict yourself in the same paragraph. This whole argument is moot. You said it best in that last part of the paragraph, "use whatever floats your boat."

We switched to ID here at work becuase Quark was slowing us down on our production side of things. We've since found that ID has more advantages for us than we originally thought (it also has some disadvantages, but nothing that makes it not worth the switch). Switching was the best thing we could've done. But it's not for everyone.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by ::maroma:::
Wow, you managed to completely contradict yourself in the same paragraph. This whole argument is moot. You said it best in that last part of the paragraph, "use whatever floats your boat."

We switched to ID here at work becuase Quark was slowing us down on our production side of things. We've since found that ID has more advantages for us than we originally thought (it also has some disadvantages, but nothing that makes it not worth the switch). Switching was the best thing we could've done. But it's not for everyone.

No. You are just reading your own experience with ID into what I wrote. Look, I'll simplify my sentance for you.

<There is no advantage either XPress or In Design has that is important enough to merit a switch from one to the other>

Now do you understand?

When I say "use whatever suits you", I mean that there is no argument here. I'd choose XPress any day always as long as ID is the way it is. I choose the superior app, the one that produces superiour results when I use it. Software is a tool.

So you understand, I was not contradicting myself.

(benb: I use Photoshop and Illustrator, now how can I be fanatically against Adobe software? Jeez! )

[benb]

Originally posted by voodoo:
(benb: I use Photoshop and Illustrator, now how can I be fanatically against Adobe software? Jeez! )

You might use it, but I doubt that you are happy with it. And from other posts, I doubt you ever will be.

Link

[tooki]

Something to keep in mind: just because Quark is the standard NOW doesn't mean it always will be.

Back in, say, 1988, if you asked a designer what the standard layout app was, they'd say Aldus PageMaker. Well, it didn't take very long for Quark to take over.

So who knows... just as PageMaker's day came and went, such will Quark's.

tooki

[voodoo]

Originally posted by benb:
You might use it, but I doubt that you are happy with it. And from other posts, I doubt you ever will be.

Link

You might want to apply any reading abilities if you have 'em and read that thread better. I say in it that I *love* Photoshop. I do. I also rever Illustrator. I do. I still hat Adobe, the software company for what they have become. It is is all in that thread you linked on. Linking on that thread undermined your statement. Funny

(Oh, and tooki - we know. Perhaps sometime in the future Microsoft will lose their position at the top, but fact of the matter is that today is what matters)

[tooki]

Today, I see Quark slowly losing ground to InDesign.

Quark may be established, but InDesign is grabbing people away for a few main reasons:

- new features like smarter text flow and transparency
- direct import of PSD and AI files
- people are tired of getting treated like crap by Quark

The fact is, many print shops are now accepting InDesign jobs, and are becoming knowledgeable in troubleshooting problems with them (just as has been the case with every new app they have to use -- even just version revisions). So that's not really a hurdle any more.

The biggest obstacle I see is that InDesign can't just seamlessly replace Quark in an established workflow. Oh, wait. Neither can Quark 6, since those workflows all depend on XTensions, which also need to be updated for OS X. So even migrating to Quark 6 (which will necessarily require migration to OS X -- conversely, migration to OS X also necessarily requires migration to Quark 6, if Classic is not acceptable, which I understand is the case) will require major retooling of the workflows, in which case you may be better off going with ID, since it's cheaper anyway.

tooki

[voodoo]

Originally posted by tooki:
Today, I see Quark slowly losing ground to InDesign.

Quark may be established, but InDesign is grabbing people away for a few main reasons:

- new features like smarter text flow and transparency
- direct import of PSD and AI files
- people are tired of getting treated like crap by Quark

The fact is, many print shops are now accepting InDesign jobs, and are becoming knowledgeable in troubleshooting problems with them (just as has been the case with every new app they have to use -- even just version revisions). So that's not really a hurdle any more.

The biggest obstacle I see is that InDesign can't just seamlessly replace Quark in an established workflow. Oh, wait. Neither can Quark 6, since those workflows all depend on XTensions, which also need to be updated for OS X. So even migrating to Quark 6 (which will necessarily require migration to OS X -- conversely, migration to OS X also necessarily requires migration to Quark 6, if Classic is not acceptable, which I understand is the case) will require major retooling of the workflows, in which case you may be better off going with ID, since it's cheaper anyway.

tooki

All very true tooki. I think XPress' only chance in the coming months and years is the power of established know-how and the name. That is all it's got going for it right now. Time will tell, but I stand squarely with XPress as matters stand.

[godzookie2k]

retooling for quark 6 will still be cheaper than buying/uprading new boxes for the designers and retraining and retooling for ID. Second of all, All the PSD imports in the world won't help you for crap when you are trying to shove one of those layer happy documents through the rip.