My personal experiences with Quark and InDesign

When working with a stroked box, every time I change the strength of the stroke the size of the box remains consistent. In InDesign the box size keeps changing...more steps :( to fix.

This is because, by default, InDesign applies the stroke aligned to the centre of the line. You can change this behaviour to align to the inside (like Quark) or to the outside, in the Stroke panel - Align Stroke.

I much prefer InDesign to Quark, the reason possibly being that I learned Quark for one semester in college and then the rest was InDesign. Just seems like a dead technology for me. Even with new version of it the interface is still boring and reminds me of an extremely old interface of Photoshop. For some reason companies still put it as a requirement to get a job. I'm a youngin' I know but I just think the program is redundant with todays technology.

NEGATIVES of both:

Not written by Microsoft!

Mac compatable versions!

Not written by Microsoft!

I never felt comfortable with the Quark Interface.

Adobe didn't copy Quark Xpress, they decided to stop the evolution of Pagemaker and started InDesign from scratch, and that gave them the advantage.

They could integrate the newer technologies in InDesign and because of the knowledge of PDF their product wa stronger.

I always think of Xpress as a very powerfull box, but when you wanted to do something you had to buy all those plugins to make the program do what you wanted.

InDesign integrated all those things into the basic program and was also a cost you didn't had to make. I don't know how recent versions are delivered, if you still need those Xtensions or not, if not than they copied InDesign.

When I think about software, I always say that you should use the soft that you feel comfortable with. I felt comfortable with Pagemaker for years and years, so I never switched to QuarkXpress. Made my magazines in Pagemaker and never had any trouble with it, other people just hated Pagemaker.

I've since made the transition to InDesign as I believe Adobe's interface design is far superior. However, if memory serves, Quark allows you to use different line screens in specific elements within the same document - very handy. I don't believe InDesign allows this, though I could be wrong in the newer versions.

" It is a better layout program. "
???????????
On what grounds.. I used quark for the first 4 years of my career then InDesign since 2002. It did and still does leave Quark in the dust on all fronts from UI, to tools and everything in between. ID is a better layout program. And that is coming from 10 years of use.

Another point:

Quark has integrated Pantone's Goe palette...Adobe has not.

Quark® still rules! I don't care what pre-press companies says about Quark® they are the ones who needs to adapt to cater to those "artists" and "wannabes" to me Indesign is a GLORIFIED Pagemaker. You kids of new generation might not know it. But it was Aldus Pagemaker. I used Quark® since it was just Quark® with the green and orange packaging. I hate Pagemaker you insert a text and it dissapear. I will stay with Quark® it's so simple. Not to mention try creating a any box and hit "apple button + option+ shift + K" see what happens. Aloha!

Remember without "ROOTS" the tree will not grow. >3dogmama> I use Quark® back in the days when you need the disc to run the program.

i always had a love/hate relationship with quark (there's a reason people called it "quirk"). as was thoroughly hashed out in another thread, i have a strong belief that the company did little to keep its user community happy and often did much to show its disdain. but the program did more than anything else out there. pagemaker was a poor man's competition.

indesign changed that and was finally a program on par w/quark by version 3 (CS1). personally i think it's passed quark in terms of usability, but to be fair i'm comparing CS1/CS2 with quark 7, since i never went past v7 of quark (and that's the last time i had comparable versions).

Having never used InDesign there's no informed commentary to make in that regard other than I don't find it surprising that Adobe would have something incredibly inane like box frames that enlarge when you enlarge the picture box. Of course that is the way ID should be programmed because we know pretty much every publication out there has corresponding keylines to the size of the photo... small photo... small border - large photo... large border. Makes perfect sense... to Adobe.

I've already said my piece on this debate - no problems for me when it comes to Quark. Whatever problems you guys had, I'm sure a couple minutes of discussion could cure it. Does QXP have some problems? Sure. What program doesn't? At least I know Quark won't be asking for upgrade money every 18 months or moving the keyboard commands and menus around for no reason like Adobe loves to do. The skills I learn are the skills I keep. And there's that other little extra you get with Quark - they actually know what a designer is going to need on the job (which doesn't include magically expanding picture borders). I'd bet the house Adobe doesn't have anyone on staff who's ever actually worked in the graphics field.

The one thing I must correct in this conversation is that InDesign was built from the ground up to BE Quark. Anyone who doesn't know InDesign basically copied Quark feature for feature way back when obviously wasn't there. That's what happened. No professionals would touch Pagemaker, so Adobe did their other favorite magic trick - program killing (goodbye Pagemaker, sorry users), copied Quark from the ground up and then flooded the market with free product to push Quark out. Good marketing. Doesn't mean it's a good program (but then again - as stated - I don't know having never found a need for it).

I don't often do requests, (except as a keynote speaker via landline with powerpoint prompts at conferences) but I do like your direct approach and it warrants a reply 3dogmama.

InDesign is my preference. It probably comes from a mix of price, usability and the marketing strategy Adobe uses. I don't think too hard about it, though did have to think hard while making the transition from Quark and getting up to speed. I imagine you'll find it a similar process. Once you're as capable using InDesign as Quark it'll be easier to embrace the program, flaws and all. This is one case (there are always exceptions) where your familiarity of InDesign may not breed contempt, but understanding. Don't apply that to human beings though... just ones and zeros.

I used to be a Quark Queen (that's my self-prescribed-title). I, too, learned from the good ol' floppy disc version, and I worked in it for a good nine years or so up until version 4.1. My transition over to InDesign wasn't a willful choice (well, it was a matter of being willing to have a job). At that time the business did use PageMaker, and I wanted to bang my head against the wall constantly while I worked in that cumbersome program. Every day you'd hear me exclaiming "What the hell!? Quark doesn't do THIS!!! Why don't we get Quark!?!?"

And then I finally got to a point of being somewhat okay with PageMaker and then the glory that is InDesign made its way onto my machine.

I really, REALLY enjoy InDesign, and I understand it is all a matter of preference. My last run-in with Quark was having to cope with a couple of odd layouts in version 5... and that was just a nightmare.

I haven't had a chance to see how the newest version performs (can't believe they're up to 8 already!). I think ANY adjustments over version 5 would be an improvement, though.

Still, I'm glad to be using InDesign, and it's probably only because I've been using THAT for a good seven years now. I'm used to it - I know what to expect from it and how to get around all the little oddities that at first tripped me up. I'd probably feel the same about Quark if the tables had been turned.

Yes, Quark has changed quite a bit since 5, but as I said earlier my preference nowadays is InDesign...I begin all of my layouts with it. And I'm learning the shortcuts, picking up speed, and appreciating what it can do.

I would have to this day been a staunch Quark user had it not been for another designer's push, whom I occasionally do freelance for. The files I was being supplied with were InDesign only. I only worked in Quark. Hmmm. Dilemma.

And then I said to myself, "Well hell, I've been wanting to try out InDesign so why not get paid for a job while learning it?"

So far I like InDesign...especially since my issues with the box stroke and Goe palette have been cleared up..but I can still appreciate Quark's capabilities. It's just like PC and Mac. Both have their attributes, both their downfalls...

AND THANK YOU ANONYMOUS FOR PARTICIPATING! *She yawns, scratches her ass, and pours herself another glass of Pinot...*

I've used Quark for 20 years (!), when it had to be loaded from floppy disks. I've used Indesign for 2 years. I would choose Indesign every time.

In the agency where I work we run both. Quark is used to update legacy files, and new artwork is created in Indesign. We run Q6.5 and CS3. The main reason for installing CS3 was the cost of upgrading 15 Quark licenses.

Where Indesign beats Quark is its integration with Illustrator, Photoshop and Acrobat. The ability to import .ai and .ps files without having to save them as .tif or .eps is a big timesaver, and Indesign's PDF creation is far superior to Quark's. Indesign's table creation beats Quark's hands down. Then there's Quark's legendary "customer service".

I could go on, but it saddens me to see the demise of QuarkXPress. I used to be one of its biggest evangelists, but I think its days are numbered.

Quark 8 handles native psd and ai files. That might be seen as a "timesaver" on your end, but where you'll lose that time is on the other end - the final output. Anyone who's ever done post production work knows native files mean sloppy work. Those invisible layers and extraneous artwork "hidden" outside of the picture box in Quark or ID have to be accounted for at the RIP. Just gives designers another reason to be lazy and adds more pitfalls for the people who are ignorant to that part of the equation.

As always... jmho.

Don't know why anyone would RIP from Illustrator since that's always been one of the hardest apps to run files, but let's assume you're right. If they're ripping from Illustrator, they could simply place the pdf file as you provided it in an Illustrator file - they wouldn't need to break it back down to a native Illustrator file. It would be easier, faster and a lot less painful that way. But - again - I find it hard to believe they would do it that way in today's world. Pdfs are a production house dream and Illustrator files are a production house nightmare. Any (honest) person behind the scenes will tell you they'd rather work with a good pdf than an eps or an ai file. And I don't know why they'd run it in Illustrator when there are Acrobat plug-ins that allow you to create flats to gang jobs if that's what they're trying to do. But that's why I said 99.9% of the time - maybe your guys are trying to make their job harder by working only in Illustrator. I doubt it - but maybe. The more reasonable answer is they are simply fixing your files before ripping them.

You think no one touches your files and - believe me - if they don't have to, they won't. But if they do have to play with the file (for whatever reason... missing fonts, etc..), it doesn't mean you're going to get a phone call. Clients want to believe they know everything that is going on with their files, but they don't. It's not worth it for a production house to call a client every time something goes wrong. It's easier to simply fix it. If a font is missing, the production people will try their own fonts before calling you. If a photo is not quite straight in a picture box - they'll straighten it themselves rather than call you. This is the real world - it's easier and faster for them to fix it. Plus it makes them look more professional if they DON'T have to call you. You don't want to deal with a facility that calls you every 5 minutes, do you? Of course not. There IS a line they won't cross - if your file is such a mess it's not worth it for them to waste the time to fix it, THEN you'll get that call late at night to fix it yourself. Love the way you put that, btw... "NO ONE TOUCHES FAW". Believe me - the biggest agencies in the world get their files fixed behind the scenes without them knowing about it. That's reality.

Your "red flag" is not a "red flag" at all and no reason for you to be concerned. Often times with Illustrator there are text "remnants" in a file - places where a client started to put text, then erased it but left the text node. The RIP still accounts for that font - even if it's no longer used in your file. That's why Illustrator is "asking for the font" - the program thinks the font is being used even though the client erased all the actual text. So your production guy is not pulling a fast one - he's doing his job correctly. The production guy has to account for all the fonts requested - whether he sees them or not - before the job is run. That "missing font" could be an invisible text node that's not really necessary, or it could be one tiny disclaimer line of actual text he doesn't see in the file. All fonts must be accounted for.

So far as the modifier key, the old Quark command to cycle thru tools was command-tab. If you're on a Mac, try that command right now and you will see it cycles you thru the open apps on your computer. It is now a system level command because Apple made it part of OSX. That is why it doesn't work in Quark any more - because the tool command was THE SAME ONE (command-tab). Open Quark and try command-option-tab. This is the NEW command to cycle thru the tools (command-option-shift-tab will cycle you backwards thru the tools). The reason this change didn't affect your Live Interior program is because that uses a DIFFERENT COMMAND. But I want to thank you for proving my previous point - that most of the "problems" people have with Quark are not really "problems" at all - just something they don't understand that can be easily explained if they bothered to ask. ;-)

Well incompetence is another story altogether. I'm talking about professional shops. These guys you're talking about are idiots if they don't understand they can raster an illustrator file at any size they want in photoshop. These are basic ideas. Personally, I wouldn't run a job with someone like that and if the client insisted on it to save money I'd take a hands off approach... Pay me for the job, here's the file, don't call me if they can't print it.

I don't find using native files when putting together a layout to be sloppy work. For me it's much more efficient utilizing native Illustrator and Photoshop files in my layouts - if I messed up something in the Photoshop layout, all I need to do is click the little edit icon in the links palette, make the changes, save and close and the changes translate back over to the InDesign document. Saves me the step(s) of having to flatten my Photoshop document and save it as a TIFF or whatever other file format, then updating the link in InDesign.

Having a print shop request your native files is sloppy, IMO. I really am quite surprised to hear there are still print shops out there that request all the native files (InDesign or Quark docs, accompanying images, fonts, etc.) instead of PDF files. I frankly don't like the idea of sending some print shop my native documents. They can go in and make whatever changes they want to a file which might not be my ideal.

I do all my designs utilizing native .ai and .psd files and have never had an issue with them because the final product that I supply that gets sent to RIP is a PDF of the layout. Never the native InDesign file.

Well Acrobat has limited editing tools built into the program and there are plug-ins that allow more comprehensive editing, so sending a pdf is no guarantee they're not working on your file anyway. Most shops still accept native files (as far as I know), but they'd much rather have a pdf. Ask any production person and they'll tell you the best day of their life was the day Adobe finally made pdfs capable of high end output. There are advantages and disadvantages to both methods, but there is less responsibility on the production end with a pdf. Everyone owns their mistakes with a pdf - there's no blame shifting involved.

But if you like placing naitve psd and ai files into your page layout program, Quark now allows you to do that. Personally, I'll stick to using tiffs and eps files just because I don't like surprises on the back end. I don't see much difference between editing in the page layout program (which Quark also allows) or editing it in Photoshop which is always open on my machine anyway. Call me crazy.