I’d suggest that you download trial versions of each and give them a go. You won’t be committed and you’ll have an idea of what you’re missing out on which, when it comes to both QuarkXPress and InDesign, is quite a lot.

I know that seems a little ambivalent, and I’ll cop to not having the same experience as you, but, from my own POV, the two strongest trends I’ve seen, is that InDesign will increase in popularity, but Quark shops seem to want to stay Quark shops–for whatever reason; familiarity, upgrade, whatever. For the near term, we seem to have a world that has two big players–knowledge of both platforms should be seen as essential, in my view.

Quark seems to be seeing the logic of giving its users collaborative tools (Composition Zones) and access to open standards, as well as giving them the tools to do more than just layout (Quark Interactive Designer). On the other hand, CS users have had those features for a while now, and with the CS3 constellation, more opportunities for print designers crossing over to web and interactive have developed.

If I had to choose a horse right now, I’d look to whichever publisher seems to better understand the apparent move to mobile platforms. I think print will aways be here (it appeals to something that is basic to human nature, and you don’t have to recharge a book) but more and more content is going to be on screens of all sizes, shapes, and mobilities.

I have my view. But take a look at what’s hot and what looks like might stick around–and decide which company meets that challenge.

I note that Quark is now allowing both a 6 and a 7 license to co-exist on the same machine, so they may well have fixed whatever problems that there were.

Your mileage may vary, of course, but I’d say it’s at least checking out.

But it is important to have the proper PDF tools so you can preflight PDFs so you can be sure that they meet your printer’s specs.

While InD and QXP are meant to do essentially the same thing, they have different ways of going about it.

Both programs require you to put content in containers, but InD calls them “frames” while QXP calls them “boxes”. While the containers behave in the main similarly, each program treats them just a little bit differently, and QXP needs you to create them before importing content while InD allows you to create them as you import.

Another example: while both allow you control of the way text flows around other boxes, InD calls it “Text Wrap” (with its own palette) while QXP calls it “Text Runaround” (and you have to access the Modify dialog box to change it)

One can say one is better than the other if one wants; on a basic end-user level, to me, it’s the same as Coke Vs. Pepsi. Any bureau can accept both output files; if you make them PDFs it doesn’t matter which application you use, on a certain level.

It’s always been my personal view that if one can, one should be as proficient in both programs as one can, if possible.

1) QuarkXPress 7 builds on QXP 6.5’s interface. I think there are a number of improvements that makes QXP 7.1 easier to use than earlier versions.

2) If you try to use InDesign as you used QuarkXPress, you will be unhappy. I strongly recommend that QXP users trying out ID should buy at least a book intended for switchers (there are 2 good books out there and it is worthwhile to buy both; they do not take a long time to read). Getting some training is also a good idea because ID approaches many issues differently than ID.

As to which is better? It depends on a number of issues, including what kind of work do you do. Working in the magazine business I find that ID’s approach to stylesheets and master pages is way beyond what QXP has to offer (I have seen no improvements in this area since QXP 4). OTOH I’ve read comments from people focused on other areas of graphic design to prefer some new features in QXP.

I, for one, have heard of no “every third document” crash or anything resembling it. It’s probably a local problem, and impossible to say what without more details. You might want to pose the question in the Quark forums if you can’t find the answer here.

I’ve been teaching a QuarkXPress class every year since 1993. I keep hearing about Quark files going belly up (every third one, or something like that). It’s never happen in my classroom. What gives?

Probably best to wait for the MacIntels, indeed.

They could, I suppose, reengineer CS2 (or 2.3) for MacIntel, but since you’ve got a product that’s already fairly tight as it is, why mess with what’s already working.

I suppose I’d rush over to MacIntel too if’n I had the budget for it…