Adobe have just released Indesign CS4 which is streets ahead of quark, they have listened to their user base, and developed a product in reflection of this.

Quark have lost there way, perhaps they need to listen to their users.

Quark for years were the industry standard for layout and design, but alas they no longer are.

In response to Martins comments (above), Indesign is faster than quark, (you can set the images to draft, to speed redraw) it also includes a live preview (CS2 and CS3), preview the page with bleed etc.. you can customize the menu and shortcuts, so that, you would use less clicks than quark, and if you are familiar with Quark, customize the shortcuts to match Quarks. I don’t understand what is meant by type handling is a disaster, Indesign’s handling of Style sheets for both character and paragraph, is far superior to quarks and has better implementation of Open Type (otf) fonts and best of all no palette bold or palette italic!

Quark isnt dying its dead.

I wish I had a good System8 Mac, with a lot of ram and fonts. And I wish I had a copy of Q5.5 on it, and I wish I could output my PDF’s from it. My work week would be around 15 hours shorter. My publication woudl look 15x better.

Quark needs to grow up. Adobe needs t stop pigging on the industry.

Too bad that real typography is dead, and design has now become 100% beholden to computer geeks and their software.

Quark 7 is even worse for this.

I have many greivances with poorly trained new designers who use these effects and in-built PDF generators without any awareness of what needs to happen to a file once it leaves their pampered hands. The reason we (and many others) still use Quark 6.5 (or even 5) is because it works, reliably, without it’s output being mangled by imagesetters (do new designers even know what those machines are?).

There are good reasons why native PSD/AI files should NEVER be embedded directly into DTP programs, not least of which is the mess that results when it’s time to print it professionally (as opposed to laser-ing it). There is a lack of education about the reasons why say flattened TIFF files are preferred over PSD and it seems as though Adobe and Quark have been trying to outdo each other to see who could impliment this fastest and bestest.

Quark is dying, this is true. But I cannot see InDesign being it’s replacement in the UK, giving that we have a very high PDF orientated workflow and InDesign just messes that up, a lot.

On the other hand Adobe is giving away its Plug-Ins development kit for free, and allowing developers to enhance, market, and sell Adobe’s products Plug-Ins with no restrictions whatsoever.

That says it all.

I think the bigger issue is how Adobe has strong armed the industry. I love Adobe and all their products, however in my case I work for ad agency that has clients with their own internal marketing departments. Since these internal marketing departments for our clients don’t have much money to upgrade hardware/software, they go with the the Adobe bundle because of the price point, not necessarily because it’s the right application for what they need. They are not able to go back and ask for another $800 for Quark. So…Now, our clients are dictating to us, that if we want to work with them, all of the working files have to be in InDesign. So now the CLIENT IS DICTATING what application we must use. Our policy is the client legally only pays for the end product, and are not entitled to the working files, so with that said we could build stuff in publisher if we wanted and it should not matter to the client. HOWEVER, times are changing, budgets are getting squeezed, so clients want to do alot of the work themselves. So we have to turn over files in the proper format. For that, I HATE ADOBE has allowed clients to DICTATE to us, what apps to use. Mark my words, we’ll all see this happen again, when Apples Keynote takes over PowerPoint and account exec are all pissed because they have to switch to keynote, just because Apple will have a bigger share of the pie.

But to sum things up, I think Quark has dropped the ball, and that is unfortunate. So instead of bickering like the Mac and PC guy on the TV spots, lets share knowledge for both applications, and if the entire industry switches 100% to InDesign, so be it. But let’s work together, instead of arguing which app is better than the other, that gets no one anywhere!!!

you could look at this as a sign of great software design. if only all software was legal, prices would drop.

For me the biggest sign Quark is dying (or dead already?) is because you cannot find any cracks or serials of Quark 7.+. The last crack/serial that is widely available is for the 7 beta version… All version thereafter… nada.
Besides that, serials/cracks for the latest updates and version on Indesign/CS3 are very easy to obtain within days after a release…

You’ve got a point… why would i need to load an extension to do dropped shadows or any other native item that is built into quark. kinda like indesign… it’s built in… but it took quark 2 whole itterations past Indesign to put it in.

another key point… why would i want to pay $749.00 to do the same thing that i could pay Buy US$699 for… granted, that’s only a $50 difference, but when you consider, i can purchase the entire CS3 suite and get much more for a bundled rate ($1,799 or 299 per title)… i guess you’re right… i might as well spend an extra 750 to get a piece of software i’ve already got… Why? because there are 3 times per year i get a quark file. and those 3 times, i would prefer to tell them to send me a pdf and a collected quark CD so i can just rebuild the document.

but to your point of why i want quark to die… it’s simple… i don’t. I honestly don’t care. But when someone sends me a QX file, I will charge them more for the work… because it takes 2x longer to do.

QX needs to figure out that they’ve lost the race… i think it would be a good idea for Microsoft to scoop up QX and give adobe a run for their money… that’s what we call competition.

If they did that, i’d expect ADBE’s shares to take a hit. They scooped up Macromedia and did away with their most viable competition… but MSFT is now stepping in to do a little flash magic, if MSFT would scoop up QX & Swish, you’d have a pretty serious Adobe Threat.

Good one you are so enlighted . Thank you - Beer and Wine and Apples and Oranges what is the point your are trying to make with your choice of mediphors?

Anyways, I don’t think blaming the layout program (whether it’s Quark or ID) is fair here. If the printer is some low budget operation using out of date equipment, it’s not the program’s fault. I’ve had my share of experience with these kinds of places. They usually demand fonts to be outlined (even in PDF). Beside the outdated equipment, they have inexperienced workers. There’s a reason why they are cheaper. Make a point to meet the staff in person and talk to them. Experienced Pressman are paid quite well. The staff and the equipment is probably where most of the price difference comes from. Use what works and find workarounds. As long as unrealistic budgets lives on, there’s a niche for everyone.

You have good points, however….

You have probably been fortunate enough to work with a print company that has the latest and gratest RIP. Unfortunately, not all and certainly not the most affordable have this. I have personally had terrible times trying to send my complicated designs to rip and having them work. The downside to InDesign is that it does allow you to do alot of cool effects but those effects won’t always work especially if you are working with a spot color. Quark has the same problems. Sometimes, when putting in a dropshadow (whether using the extension or using the autmatic drop shadow) over a background the dropshadow does not go through as a transparence.

So, Steve has a very helpful tip out there for people. A good way to see if it will work is to export it as a pdf. If you see strange ghosting or fattening of text near a transparency, then the chances are that your local mom and pop printer will have a hard time RIPing it.

Don’t mean to stick my nose into it but I deal with these files all the time and whether it is because our RIP is ready to rest in peace or because of my lack of knowledge… it is a real issue.

For those who have never used InDesign the thought of switching is unthinkable. I hear it all the time ( I work in the printing industry) about how quark is better for printing. But really, quark has so many issues with transparencies and EPS’s and dropshadows that if I have to print a very complicated piece I know that I am going to have a headache getting it to work.

Yes, InDesign has print issues. But when you compare the two products they are both found lacking in perfection in that department. The true benefit in InDesign is it’s ease of use.

It is just an all around classier, smoother program. It is like comparing Champaign to beer. Or, eh hem… Mac to PC.

I also find that those who shout the loudest about the superiority of Quark have never really gotten very familiar with InDesign.

I was a dyed in the wool QX user for more than a decade. If anyone was enthusiastic about the program (but not about Quark service) it was me.

But you can’t deny the truth.
And the truth is Indesign is a far superior program (IMHO) and is part of a superior suite of programs (i.e. CS).

I started using Indesign in a new job in 2005 and I don’t see any reason to go back to Quark.

I don’t think I’ll be getting back on that old horse.
Pavlo

why would you need to load an Xtension when Drop Shadows are built into Quark 7?

why would you want Quark to go away, when Quark has better transparencies than InDesign and InDesign CS3 therefore will follow Quark and implement these too (competition is helpful)?

why would you personally benefit from Quark being dead?

Choppy

Yes, I am yet another user of InDesign who doesn’t know what the heck you’re talking about. I migrated from QX quite some time ago and do TONS of print work, text work, mags, catalogs, etc… w/ my beloved Adobe product… The print dialog box is simple as well. (All versions V2.0.2 – CS2)… i’m of the opinion that i don’t want to have to load an extension to simply get a dropped shadow… i like to look at it like this: i design using my tools correctly: logos in AI, photos in PS, and page layout in ID… additionally, i rarely send Packaged/Collected disks any more… i’ve gotten stellar quality for magazines & postcards alike with PDF’s…

yes, there are a few printers who cannot use ID or PDF’s. I’ve developed a solution for that as well: I DON’T USE THEM!

lastly, we also have a simple solution for the client who wishes us to use quark… that’s fine, but we’ll be charging them double hours and the purchase of the software.

case closed, we don’t use quark… and none of our close competitors do either.

QUARK… please die!

It took me a year to make the transition! I would do the odd project in InDesign — worked my way through Classroom In a Book (not that great, IMHO). Finally, with a major project facing me, I gritted my teeth, bumbled my way through it in InDesign, and NEVER looked back!

I know that ID is still a work in progress, but it is a magnificent program that makes page layout fun! (Well, relatively painless, anyway!)

A word of (obvious) advice for those who give the trial version a try: Let InDesign be InDesign. Don’t get upset because it doesn’t do something the way QX does. Make the (rather considerable) effort to understand how ID works, and I think you’ll begin to agree that this is a fabulous program. One of the approaches that I like (and that occasionally drives me crazy) is that there are usually three or four different ways to do things. You just have to pick the one you like the best and stick with it — or you’ll go crazy getting lost in all the options.

I’ve never had a problem running either an InDesign document or an InDesign-created PDF through RIP with what you mention and more. I’ve migrated magazines and newspapers to InDesign who use such features in their daily or monthly runs without problem.

By the way, XPress also does overlays and transparencies, and, through xtensions, graduated drop shadows and more.

Actually, converting PageMaker files isn’t bad in both programs. InDesign has native filters that will open PageMaker 6.5 and 7 files, and there’s an xtension for QuarkXPress to do the same (but more PageMaker versions, I believe).

If you go the InDesign route, I suggest you also pick up a book to give you the ins and outs of conversion, what to watch out for, etc. It’s Moving to InDesign by David Blatner, Chris Smith, and Steve Werner. It’s not an InDesign reference; it’s a manual for making the transition to InDesign, including file conversions.

Thank you,
Nina

We’re currently in one of those rare times wherein two applications serve the desktop publishing market with comparable ability and features unique to each. Thus the purpose of this publication.

At the moment, there is no consensus of a clear, hands-down winner in an argument between QuarkXPress and InDesign for newsletter and book production. Either program can serve such markets and applications very, very well.

They both contain the features needed to produce such documents, which leaves only factors that cannot be objectively quantified as the criteria by which to make the choice. Specifically: learning curve, ease of use, and user interface.

If you’re accustomed to, and satisifed with, working in Photoshop and/or Illustrator, InDesign’s interface is extremely similar and shares many of the same tools exactly. Therefore, InDesign would be the better choice in terms of learning curve, ease of use, and user interface.

However, if you are not a Photoshop and/or Illustrator user, or simply don’t like the way those applications are put together, perhaps QuarkXPress’s unique experience would be more to your liking.

The only way to judge is to try them.

Both Adobe and Quark make available on their respective Websites 30-day free trial versions of these applications. Download them and try both on a typical project you expect to produce in one. Take note of what you like and dislike about each application.

Now, if you question is a marketability one, in other words, which should you learn in order to market yourself to newsletter and book producers, the answer I’m afraid is that you’ll need to learn both InDesign and QuarkXPress.

The markets are in a state of flux right now while these two applications duke it out. Although many claim a clear winner is evident, the fact is that the market has not yet made up its mind. Professional designers who wish to remain marketable must maintain proficiency in both QuarkXPress and InDesign, and in the last several versions of each.

These geniuses want a single User Interface for all graphics software. Regardless of whether that interface is appropriate or the speediest design for that particular action. As long as everything appears in the same place in every software they open they can rest easy. They pay for a suite of tools with a common UI never questioning why Adobe hasn’t creating a single software instead of 3 (Ilustrator, In Design and Photoshop) that all look and feel the same doing basically similar things. These people don’t constitute computer literates… more like jaw dragging monobrows. They can’t be bothered to learn more than one UI regardless of how tailored it is to the TASK.

Of course the best thing that could happen is Adobe owns 100% market share. Why? Because once the own 100% market share these guys believe they will receive even better designed software, competitive pricing and award winning customer support.

The only thing that gives me some comfort in watching these fanboy vultures gloating over the “remains” of Quark is that in corporate monopolies someone always winds up getting screwed in the end. It’ll be the vultures in this instance.

I for one will be very sad if Quark was to give up and join the dark side. I see the battle between Quark and Adobe as a parallel between that of Apple and Microsoft. Apple was “the man” in the beginning… then they got cocky and lost their way. Microsoft turned into a megacompany delivering cheaper but much less user friendly products to a mass consumer base. Then Apple made some major changes and have now recovered to be a major player in the modern tech market. Their reputation is gold compared with M$.

Adobe = M$ - buying up smaller companies continuously - attempting all sorts of anti-competition maneuvering, bundled product suites, buying a competitors software and then letting it die with NO support = Freehand. The people who consititute the Adobe loyalty base should feel ashamed - but they won’t - they will continue to gloat and bignote themselves and the single UI concept in these “forums”. They think this charade is how Adobe will always be. They don’t see anti-competitive moves because they choose not to see it. Only when the same ruthlessness Adobe has applied unto its competitors is in turn applied to a monopolised customer base will these people finally understand.

Bury your heads in the sand. Believe in fairies and an objective Adobe vs Quark website (thats what you all know it should be called).

Keep agreeing with each other and telling yourselves you’re using “better software” not simply “different software”.

1. Quark has been very static, resitant to change, improve, or even listen to it’s users (or even provide a decent customer service experience). All this while our work is getting more and more dynamic.

2. Yes, Quark gives you more printer control (i.e. hexachrome), but over the version updates it has been loosing more and more ground to Indesign. Now Indesign is better at handling font and text, which used to be Quark’s strong points.

3. There are die hard Quark fans and there are die hard Indesign fans. But most designers who are proficient in both (like myself, I actually started with Quark), prefer Indesign. I’m sick of hearing people say that Quark is better when they haven’t even given Indesign a real shot. Some of the worse excuses I hear are:
A. “Indesign can’t handle long documents” - hmm I wonder what the book file is for?
B. “Quark is just faster” - what they mean is they work faster on Quark because they are not proficient in Indesign.

4. Younger designer tend to know both Quark and Indesign or Indesign only. While those who are only Quark savy have been in the industry for 15+ years. What do you think will happen as they retire and new people head up the department?

I respect people’s opinion. And I respect people who are both Quark and Indesign users and have a preference. I also, respect people who can say that they prefer one over the other but at the same time admit that they are only expert at one and not the other. If you don’t know Quark, learn it. If you don’t know Indesign, learn it. Not just to better argue your point, but to actually be better. I spend at least 4 hours a week experimenting or learning new or updated software. Computers become obsolete, people shouldn’t. And that had absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

On the other hand, InDesign’s implementation of Master pages and master text frames is nothing but odd. Most people I know avoid master text frames because they can’t figure out how to work with them effectively.

InDesign’s support of XML is also better and more straightforward. The support for transparent TIFFs and PSDs is also wonderful. I use the product on Mac and PC and it is a joy to use OpenType! The Glyph palette and so many other features are equally amazing.

But I do not want Quark to go away! I did not want Macromedia to be absorbed! It is bad for us and for Adobe to have only a single design interface out there. InDesign is good BECAUSE Quark was so good. When InDesign first arrived no one gave it a chance. It crashed too much, had almost NO features. It couldn’t even do the same things Quark could do!! But Adobe stuck to it, slowly adding features, fixing the bugs and listening to its customers. Fat and sassy Quark turned their back on us. When you are the only game in town why should you care?

So that is why I don’t want Quark to release a bad product, or to die. How much money will Adobe spend on development if there is NO competition?

For years Illustrator sucked! But it was the only game in town. CorelDRAW made a good run at them and actually took over the PC market for a while because Adobe had turned its back on us! Remember they didn’t even release a PC version for a few years! CorelDRAW kept on chugging, adding features and ease of use and power unmatched until only recently. (Yay, LIVE TRACE! and LIVE PAINT!) (But the interface still sucks.)

Without competition, less money and less time will be spent improving the products. We will be stuck with an Adobe that is no more responsive than Quark is now. So pray that Quark and Adobe both stay healthy AND competitive for ALL our sakes!

Big Jim Action Figure!

The company I came from was huge. When they bought products, they more or less bought for everyone across the board. And once they’ve got a product, they don’t do a lot of upgrading or switching. They are still using Quark 4.0 there. They cut expenses any way they can, and if that means no upgrading until their program becomes completely incompatable with the industry, that’s what will happen.

One other thing to consider is the attitudes of the people who work at newspapers. In general, they are very traditionally minded. Those who aren’t don’t tend to stick around for long. Many of the best editors are old enough or set in their ways enough that switching is not a good option for them. They either don’t understand the new technology, or refuse to give it a chance. You have to understand that many of them would go right back to paste-up if they possibly could. For them any layout program is a necessary evil, but they’re used to Quark. InDesign is something completely foreign to them and no matter how good it is, they won’t like it or use it until they absolutely have to.

(Of course this doesn’t apply to everyone, but the prevailing attitude seems to be this way.)

From my point of view - In Design was the “long overdue” dtp software that Adobe needed to produce to make up for trying to peddle the awful Pagemaker onto the masses for so long. To Photoshop and Illustrator users it was great because the UI (User Interface) was so similar in terms of layout and toolbars and tools.

To those seeking cost cutting measures because of various reasons In Design obviously stood out.

To those who found learning multiple graphics software packages daunting In Design was a dream because now they could just use pretty much the same UI across 3 popular software packages (In Design, Illustrator and Photoshop).

I guess my real problem with In Design is the fact it is too much like Photoshop and Illustrator, whilst badly attempting to duplicate the time saving features of Quark. Now to a dummy having 3 software titles that have many identical features may seem cool… but you’re missing the point. For the sake of speed a UI should be unique to the purpose that software was created for. Unfortunately the clunky UI of In Design resulting from trying to pander to adobe loyalists while copying Quark has kinda ruined it.

As for people stating In Design is a pleasure to use and then having prefaced that with “I’m not a design pro… but” they should probably realise that Quark is Professional software and priced as such. So why would you even make such a silly comment? Its not aimed at non pro users like you. Geez. Actually this website and its comparisons of the two are null and void in the first instance.

You can tell from In Designs bundled pricing or cheap individual pricing that its aimed not just at pros but at the average joes who have probably never undertaken any form of graphics software training.

Quark may be stubborn (to the viewpoint of joes and adobe users) but I like that they have seemlessly incorporated new features into their software whilst keeping all the speed advantages of their original superior DTP User Interface. And I AM a pro user and I HAVE used both many years.

If your real problem with Quark is it is elitist then you have little to contribute in here. Their software is priced appropriately.

If cost cutting was my issue or I was a non designer looking for something vastly better than Publisher and other non or semi-professional affordable DTP software then In Design would be my first choice too. Thankfully thats not the case and seeing as I was one of those people who purchased his quark license pre-2000 all I pay is upgrade prices which are entirely affordable. And for my money I get software that does DTP at a pro level brilliantly with a DTP specific UI which In Design has clumsily attempted to copy whilst trying to keep the Adobe UI (it didn’t work).

I work in a direct to plate pdf workflow. And I have had nothing but ease of use from Quark 6.5. I think some people simply don’t know how to use Quark and unfortunately they are the ones who complain the loudest.

The only question everyone needs to ask themselves is why would you even be comparing these two applications

If you consider new people coming into the industry or learning design and layout for the first time, they are gonna both enjoy and have a much easier time with the friendly and fun indesign.

I’m not a design pro… but indesign is a pleasure to use… quark is not… and I think quark are gonna need to pull a complete miracle out of the bag on this one…

If you don’t like QUARK or INDESIGN which program DO you like?

This just exemplifies the difference between the two programs. One is closed and insular (Quark), the other is open and collaborative (InDesignCS). Adobe has shown again and again, with PDF for instance, that it understands what people want to do…and that isn’t spend hours dealing with import and output issues. They haven’t tried to reinvent the wheel…they’ve just put together a graphics package that allows the user to do everything out of the box. After years struggling with Quark it has been heaven on earth to use InDesign. Add to this the fact that the entire Creative Suite licence comes for less than the price of Ouark…

well…

I WILL SAY QUARK WILL BE A LEADER IN DTP.