InDesign 2

in Mac Software edited January 2014
Just got back from the MacExpo in London. Saw InDesign 2 and looks pretty sweet. It has transparency capabilities as well as layer modes, long document capabilities and added text formatting options. Looks like this version might really be the Quark killer... Not sure if thats a good thing though.


  • Reply 1 of 6
    Did you try the new table editor? I read it should at least be as good as the one in FrameMaker.

    A few interesting links about ID2 for those speaking some french: <a href=""; target="_blank">1</a> <a href=""; target="_blank">2</a> <a href=""; target="_blank">3</a>
  • Reply 2 of 6
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    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=""; 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>
  • Reply 3 of 6
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Well, Quark is doing everything in their power to help Adobe because their attitude towards customer service still sucks, and their product while quick and stable is still a dinosaur IMO.

    I really hope ID 2 is a little more efficient when dealing with physical memory and such. If they can add in the long document features, transparency and layers, combined with what it already has, and do all that in a more speedy package...they will trounce Quark eventually. Many Art School design labs are already using ID 1.5 alongside Quark, so hopefully the next generation of designers are getting used to it and will demand it later on when in the workplace.

    Among all the major software players, Quark is the absolute worst in several categories -- but especially with customer service and upgrade paths. They suck the big one.
  • Reply 4 of 6
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    Yes, Quark is the worst in that respect. Anytime I've ever had to deal with them on ANYTHING, they've been nothing less than complete shitheads.

    They are such ballbusters when it comes to upgrades and volume purchases and so forth.

    And IS a dinosaur. Way too many multi-step procedures involving annoying, "gotta click 'OK' or 'Cancel' before you proceed" dialog boxes (colors, style sheets, etc.).

    Plus (and this might sound like a minor point, but it still bugs me), they're the one major remaining software company (graphics, anyway) still using that plain, two-color (black and white) tool and palette design. No depth, no shading, no recessed buttons on the tool you're using, etc.

    Not the end of the world, I guess, but I always feel like it's 1995 or so when I use QuarkXPress. You look at it next to Photoshop, Illustrator, Acrobat, etc. and it's like night and day!
  • Reply 5 of 6
    4fx4fx Posts: 258member
    And it doesnt help any that they dont have academic pricing. This is why most schools still use PageMaker. They kinda screwed themselves over because of that one...
  • Reply 6 of 6
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Macworld has an excellent preview article in their latest issue. Fairly in-depth coverage given the app in still in beta.Among the major changes you may or may not know about:

    Use of the same Transparency Engine and Effects as Photoshop and Illustrator (no more clipping paths when importing files from those apps)

    Much improved performance, especially when reflowing large chunks of text, opening documents, placing images and the like. Apparently the beta builds are already noticably faster in many respects than v1.5 (good news!)

    Long Document features (TOC, Indexing, but no story editor like PM - might sneak in before it's released)

    Excellent Table creation and Table formatting tools that far exceed what Quark and other apps can do currently

    Support for non-postscript printers and a more streamlined and service-bureau-aware printing workflow in general

    Full support for XML, and a few others I'm too lazy to re-read and post here.

    In short, sounds like it will give many users reason to switch from Dino-Quark, though certainly not all. Either way, I'm really psyched. Based on the above, it already addresses all of the short-comings I could think of. I love the prospect of having such a powerful DTP app with the Adobe look and feel / integration with other Adobe apps. Die Quark, DIE!!

    [ 11-30-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
Sign In or Register to comment.