Scott Kelby writes a good column about InDesign in the latest Mac Design magazine. He has a lot of good points and dings Adobe for putting perhaps a bit too much attention and emphasis in "gee whiz" bells and whistles that many people won't use and not making the program AT LEAST as quick and nimble as QuarkXPress.
He has a point. Man, I completely HATE QuarkXPress. I hate the stupid ugly program, I hate the company, I hate their pricing and upgrade policies, their packaging, the interface, the clunky nature of it, the "have to go to a separate place to build a color then save it" philosophy, etc.
BUT, it's stable and quick and works.
I was so happy when InDesign was announced a couple of years ago because everything else I use ALL DAY LONG are Adobe products: Illustrator, Photoshop, ATM Deluxe, Acrobat, etc., so I couldn't WAIT to get a true "Quark killer" page layout app from Adobe.
But it (version 1, anyway) was so POKEY! More aggravating than anything. Version 1.5 fixed some things and helped a bit, but it's still noticeably slower than Quark.
InDesign 2.0 looks like it has an honest chance of taking on Quark, head to head. The speed definitely is higher and some much-needed Quark-matching features are implemented.
Not to mention (most important, IMO) is that it feels like the other Adobe stuff, so that's got to be a time-saver and effeciency enhancer.
But, like Kelby says in his article, no one is going to abandon QuarkXPress to go with a program half as zippy and well-thought-out for the day-to-day user/production crowd. And I agree. Things like basic features and speed should come before things like the ability to bring in native layered Photoshop files with transparency intanct and so forth.
That's a nice feature, but if it's poorly implemented, a performance hog or isn't reliable when going to film, then what's the point?
Adobe STILL won't have a "Quark killer" if it puts that particular cart before the horse.
But here's hoping InDesign 2.0 is as good as it's looking to be. Nothing would give me greater satisfaction than to give the boot to QuarkXPress and feel like I'm using a program written after 1996.
By the way, <a href="http://www.macdesignonline.com/columns/Nov_Dec/Right_stuff.html
" target="_blank">here's the Kelby article</a> from Mac Design.
He makes some very good points.
[ 11-25-2001: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>