anyone using InDesign 2 on X?

in Mac Software edited January 2014
waaay back I complained that InDesign 1.5 was simply the slowest app out there, 30-40second waits for a document to save, etc and this is on a G4 450 with 440+MB of Ram, etc...

Then some people replied to wait for 2 and that the order of the day was speed speed speed...

So? Impressions? New features? Good? Bad?


  • Reply 1 of 29
    On the "art and graphics" section of the MacNN forums, InDesign2 has been discussed recently. It sounds like people there don't think it's fast enough at all.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    It still has it ways to go, and I think quark, with all their experience, will be ahead for the forseasble future.

    I could be wrong.

    They can at least get all the people who aren't patient enough to wait for quark carbon.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    I tried the 'close to GM' version of InDesign

    I found InDesign running native is slower than QuarkXprees 4.1 runninng under Classic

    Weird....maybe it's a beta....don't know.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    Quark actually runs pretty well in Classic, I think. I'd consider trying ID2 if the "competitive upgrade" price were a little lower, but Quark is still OK with me.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    jccbinjccbin Posts: 476member
    InDesign 2.0 runs very well on my dual 450 g4 in X (10.1.2) and in 9.2.2 on a 667 G4. Both with 512+ MB RAM.

    the very first time i launched ID2 in X it seemed a little slow. But every subsequent launch has been quick and the work has gone very well.

    That's my opinion.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Not surprising. There may be pre-binding issues as far as all the libraries and modules (since ID is built that way) it gets a little faster as you use it more.

    Also, I think the #1 thing anyone can do to speed up Adobe apps under X is make sure you're using at least 768 MB of RAM, preferably a GB. I bet a lot of the speed issues are RAM related, especially with something like ID, which was that way from the beginning. I'm sure it will get more RAM hungry and not less, IOW.

    Also, I'm willing to bet Adobe will patch each of their major X apps within three or four months of release which will also speed things up a bit hopefully. I don't think an Illustrator patch has been released yet but I bet one will be pretty soon, with the others to follow accordingly.

    [ 01-28-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 29
    ybotybot Posts: 329member
    I just got InDesign 2 yesterday and while the responsiveness isn't mind-blowing, it's fast enough and about on-par with Illustrator 10's. Oh, and I've only tested it under X because I don't keep Classic installed.

    Now if I were on KidRed's new dual 1ghz machine I'm sure things would be a lot faster. BTW, I'm using a 550mhz TiBook with 'only' 512mb of ram.
  • Reply 8 of 29
    ybotybot Posts: 329member
    Oops, double post.

    [ 01-29-2002: Message edited by: Ybot ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 29
    excuse you
  • Reply 10 of 29
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Finally got a chance to play with the real final version of InDesign in the local mac store.

    Testing the app with the new flat screen iMac booted from OS X.

    It's pretty snappy

    Haven't tried it with OS 9. I don't bother using that anicent POS OS anyway
  • Reply 11 of 29
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ybot:

    <strong>I just got InDesign 2 yesterday and while the responsiveness isn't mind-blowing, it's fast enough and about on-par with Illustrator 10's. Oh, and I've only tested it under X because I don't keep Classic installed.

    Now if I were on KidRed's new dual 1ghz machine I'm sure things would be a lot faster. BTW, I'm using a 550mhz TiBook with 'only' 512mb of ram. </strong><hr></blockquote>

  • Reply 12 of 29
    I've been anxious to try ID2 but don't want to buy it until I've been able to play with a demo. Now it turns out my girlfriend is getting a copy at work and she can bring it home so I can see for myself how it runs on my machine. I hate buying expensive software when I'm not really sure what I'm getting...
  • Reply 13 of 29
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ybot:

    <strong> I'm using a 550mhz TiBook with 'only' 512mb of ram. </strong><hr></blockquote>

    I am using a Dual 500 G4 and with 'only' 1.8GB of RAM
  • Reply 14 of 29
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Not to divert this topic too much, but how fast or slow do comparable apps run on the Windows platform?

    I use macs at school, and a very crappy (300Mhz) PC at home so I really have no impression of an up to date PC's performance. As I slowly get into digital photography, Im thinking of going Mac at home too. I realize that you're all talking about layout/page design but that can be useful for image presentation (if not outright manipulation).

    For now I use a 'cheap' old Nikon 35mm, and the school's scanner. I'm hoping to buy a higher-end consumer still camera within the year (or too accompany the eventual mac switch). Probably in the 4-6 MP range. Image files no bigger than 10MB, probably. Maybe layers, and fancy shmancy collages, a few mid size 11x17ish print projects. So, I'm thinking files in the 30Mb or so size range. Will they be really slow?
  • Reply 15 of 29
    [quote]Originally posted by Matsu:

    <strong>Not to divert this topic too much...</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Too late!
  • Reply 16 of 29
    I've used the InDesign 2 final on my G4 Cube and it's awesome. it is a little slower than Quark. But, I will take the superior interface and capabilities anyday over Quark's speed and horrendous UI. If I ever encounter Quark's insane problems with fonts/printing/color/image linking/pagination/style sheets/master pages again, i will rip my hair out. Long live InDesign.
  • Reply 17 of 29
    This speed thing does my head in.

    I used ID1.5 throughout it's lifetime and yes it was sluggish sometimes, but offered superior productivity than that of Quark.

    ID2 is much faster, and actually is closer to Quark than ID1.5 in both speed and function.

    ID will always be slower than Quark, just as it will be always be slower than Pagemaker, not because of sloppy code etc but because it is far superior, has a modular (plugin like) program design and has to do much more at any one time than Quark. Take for example the ?Optical Kerning? and ?Paragraph Composer?, I marvel every time I use this function. I have applied ?Optical Kerning? (reads and adjusts kerning based on how close the characters are to each other) to 40 pages of text before today and only had to wait a few seconds to see the difference.

    I?d sooner scroll slower down a very well drawn page that closely resembles to actable print than scroll fast down an old outdated and poorly drawn page.

    Working in a pre-press environment as well, I can tell you I loath any time I spend in Quark nowadays.

    Anyway, back to subject, I have used ID in OSX and it?s fine, although I found I had to install for both OS9 and OSX separately. The GUI certainly looks more tuned in OSX, in OS9 it sometimes looks and behaved worse than ID1.5, but I suspect that has something to do with it being Carbonised.
  • Reply 18 of 29
    Actually if you run the installer from OS X it will work properly in 9. I had originally installed in 9 first and I got an "improper Serial Number" error. I deleted it and reinstalled under X and it works perfectly in 9 and X now.

    Mac Guru
  • Reply 19 of 29
    Has anyone actually gone through the process of outputting a job using the new transperency features ? Have there been any problems ? That, to me, is going to be the number one feature if it works correctly. I dislike Quark. It's old and it feels older. I still do about 80% of my work with it because the local pre-press shops in my area aren't supporting In-Design yet.
  • Reply 20 of 29
    ndanda Posts: 14member
    ID 2.0 in X is much faster than ID 1.5.2 running in 9.x on my iBook 500 and G4.

    In some functions, InDesign 2.0 is even faster than Quark. For the most part, however, InDesign 2.0 is slower than Quark 4.x.

    Speed alone is not the best measure of InDesign's functionality. As noted above, InDesign documents look great on the screen. I'm more than willing to trade accuracy for speed. It's saved me a lot of printing.

    For my money, I can work faster in InDesign than Quark. I do all my office work in Quark, but for my projects on the side I use InDesign.

    I have had just one problem outputting in InDesign. I have one font that prints garbage when it's run around a photo with a clipping path on it. I haven't been able to debug it yet, as a number of systems are involved, but I think the problem is with the font, not InDesign.

    My prepress guys have been able to get flawless output from InDesign since 1.5.2. But my prepress guys are a lot better than average. I like to refer to them as prepress artists. It should also be noted that I deal with a fairly limited font set.

    I expect to switch to InDesign at work once we have a few more people trained on it.

    I give InDesign high marks. If I could change anything about it, it would be to remove the anti-aliasing on thin rules (those using 2.0 know what I'm talking about), and to make just a few more functions scriptable.
Sign In or Register to comment.