Unlike 4, which took 5 updates to sort, Quark seems to have learnt their lesson with 5 with all the Beta testing, as it seems MORE stable than Q4.11, especially if you run it in Classic, suggesting a lot of the old code got re-written. Obviously, trickier to send files to repro than Q4 if you use the new features, although most bureau I know have at least 1 copy of Q5.
A Quark tech I spoke to recently told me the OS X version will be considerably faster than InDesign.
sorry to tell but for a graphic/DTP designer, Indy is a BIG time saver. Ok previewing pages with a lot of images is a bit slow compare to XPress BUT you have the ability to import photoshop files directly AND control the opacity of the layers. Thank god, I don't have to save the file in TIFF or EPS in photoshop before importing it in a layout (i know there is a lot of extension for quark but you must pay for them). Also, i can do a lot of effects stuffs (thanks for the transparency in indy 2) without leaving indy. I can also put a lot of shadows and when I move an object the shadow move with it (transparency included...).
And for tables... Quark is a joke compare to indy 2. And if you do a lot of PDF... from screen-proofing to high-rez output, indy is THE champ ! No way in hell I will go back to Quark !
And don't tell me that I don't know production... I have used Quark for 10 years before switching to indy.
Quark 5 and Indesign 2 are not good at tables - you need Xtensions or plug-ins to do them properly in either.
Most RIP's aren't going to like importing PSD files directly.
Transparency is a nice effect, unfortunately most RIP's don't like that either ! Ditto the shadows, too. And you can make shadows move in Quark, too - just group them !!
peve's last reply-
I don't think the choice of keyboard shortcuts would determine if I know a program will get the job done !
Apart from aforesaid transparency and shadows, I can't find anything in InDesign that isn't in Quark 5 ?
Quark 5 and Indesign 2 are not good at tables - you need Xtensions or plug-ins to do them properly in either.
Most RIP's aren't going to like importing PSD files directly.
Transparency is a nice effect, unfortunately most RIP's don't like that either ! Ditto the shadows, too. And you can make shadows move in Quark, too - just group them !!
peve's last reply-
I don't think the choice of keyboard shortcuts would determine if I know a program will get the job done !
Apart from aforesaid transparency and shadows, I can't find anything in InDesign that isn't in Quark 5 ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry you don't get it.
Try Indy2, try the transparency, try the shadows, try the tables, import some photoshop and some illustrator native files, output to pdf... go to your service bureau ET VOILA ! perfect page in no time...
Maybe i have too much luck but i send my pdf files to my service bureau who has two agfa accuset with an apogee rip and i have no problems at all (with all shadows and transparencies and photoshop files you can imagine). I send my PDF to my printing house for CTP and no problems at all...
Strange no ?
And i can tell you that you can't do shadows in Xpress like in Indy 2, and you can't output in PDF a 1 GB brochure in 10 minutes.
Try that.
Just do a real work in Indy and you will never go back to the 80's of publishing.
Because there is no real differences between Xpress 3.3 and Xpress 5.
You don't like the change, that's all. Admit it.
Maybe you're too old...
EDIT: You don't need to send native indy files to your friends with all the images and fonts in gentle little folders... blahblahblah
Simply send a PDF and you're set. BUT if you want to do the old way you've got a preflight and packaghing option "standard!" in indy 2.
bmap fonts ? - OS X supports the same fonts as OS 9 - Postscript, Truetype, Bitmap and now OpenType. I can't see why anyone would want to use Bitmap fonts though ?
" Up until now Mac OS9, a family of typefaces called bitmapped fonts was still kicking around, a hold over from the orignal 1984 Macintosh. But Mac OS X can't even use such fonts. Only always-smooth font formats work in Mac OS X, namely TrueType, Postscript Type 1, and OpenType. (The latter is a font developed by Microsoft and Adobe that's already common on Windows Machines.)
And you asked why someone would use bmap fonts?
Well I don't know about anyone else.
When you receive a file that was done on a intel box, and the fonts were provided to you by the client; however, it isn't a font that you have a mac version of (and the thought of having to preflight the job on the pc gives you cold sweats) one can using Macromedia's Fontographer create a bmap version of the font. Which then can be used on your mac.
Now Using this method one still has to be careful of re-flow issues.
Try Indy2, try the transparency, try the shadows, try the tables, import some photoshop and some illustrator native files, output to pdf... go to your service bureau ET VOILA ! perfect page in no time...
<hr></blockquote>
What I was saying is that Quark 5 CAN do all these things, and not have any pre-press related problems like InDesign 2 !
And maybe you haven't had to spend hours trying to sort out 200 page brochuire work done on programs that are NOT Quark !!
I use whatever tool works - if InDesign were (or becomes) better, especially once we see the OS X version from Quark, I would use it.
I don't like Macromedia products generally (ease of use issues), but Dreamweaver is way better than Adobe GoPoo 6 !!
[quote]
When you receive a file that was done on a intel box, and the fonts were provided to you by the client; however, it isn't a font that you have a mac version of (and the thought of having to preflight the job on the pc gives you cold sweats) one can using Macromedia's Fontographer create a bmap version of the font. Which then can be used on your mac.
<hr></blockquote>
Ah, try using TransType 2 - it converts whatever weird PC font into Mac PostScript !
[quote]and for all those rips who can't handle anything else than postscript 2-stuff: get a life! <hr></blockquote>
what do you mean by this? are you saying that all rips can handle ps3? if so, what version of ps3 are you talking about?
There are many different versions of postscript level 3. Not all rips can handle direct input of pdfs. Not all rips who can take in pdf can take in pdf 1.4. not all rips that can take in pdf 1.4 can handle pdf 1.4 correctly. postscript of any level does not allow transparency. indesign is not all perfect. it will treat icc or csa profiles different depending on the file format. The pdf output from indesign is NOT reliable, Adobe reps have even admitted to this.
what about your last comment? some people don't have the luxury of spending time trying out indesign2, so why not instead of posting a pointless message, actually list some features that indesign has over quark?
what keyboard shortcuts are more efficient in indesign than in quark?
and quark isn't perfect either. I believe in 5 you HAVE to disable a default xtension otherwise you receive problems creating pdf or postscript, i can't remember which but i believe it was the opi xtension. right now there is absolutely NO reason to move from Quark 4.11 to Quark 5. If you need the table feauture, buy a plugin which is cheaper than the upgrade.
my point wuz that everything in quark (and i used that crap to the max) is kind of weird, hidden and unlogical.for the keyboard shorts you had to get your fingers broken first.
<hr></blockquote>
This is all rather tiring - as the last post pointed out - why not list some features InDesign has over Quark 5 if it so much better ? I'm quite happy with Quarks shortcuts and have normal fingers to prove it...
Your comment regarding level 2 RIPs is also rather odd and shows how little repro experience you obviously have - I like to have the option to send my files to any printer and be assured that they will print.
As I previously posted, I think InDesign is a good program, let down by its output which causes repro problems. It's nice to have a choice not to use Quark, but Quark 5 CAN cover most of InDesign's ground - perhaps you haven't used Quark 5 very much ?
<strong>(...)Your comment regarding level 2 RIPs is also rather odd and shows how little repro experience you obviously have - I like to have the option to send my files to any printer and be assured that they will print.<hr></blockquote>
Sorry if I sounded impolite, but I was trying to make the point that you have to make a choice here -
You said initially that you haven't had any output problems from InDesign, then you also said that:
[quote]
its no big surprise that indesign docs can give you trouble - 'cause indesign is something completely new (with new features).
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly ! That's all I'm trying to say ! - get some few more features in InDesign, and the trade-off is a lower compatibility level than Quark ! Personally I'm lucky that I have had other people purchase Quark for me - I hate Quark's pricing as much as you !
<strong>Sorry if I sounded impolite, but I was trying to make the point that you have to make a choice here</strong><hr></blockquote>
i still love you all
"choice" is my point too.
everybody has to make his/her choice based on what the person wants to do with the app.
indesign is far from perfect - but i think it's better then xpress. (imho)
for me indesign:
-is less complicated and more intuitive (more productive)
-is far less expensive (i have payed thousands of swissfranks over the years for an app that hardly chaged or gained features (and the support was almost non existant))
-has basic features that xpress wasn't able to (didn't care to) implement.
[quote]You said initially that you haven't had any output problems from InDesign, then you also said that:
<peve>its no big surprise that indesign docs can give you trouble - 'cause indesign is something completely new (with new features).</peve><hr></blockquote>
yes, 'till now i never had problems with output (pdf, color- b/w-laserprinter and exposure on film.
but, i am a dtp-guy.
i'm always thinking in "worse case terms" (if you recieved the junk i have from so-called graficdesigners you would too) and therefore i'm never to optimistic.
on the other hand: in the end i always got a solution. (guess i'm a little chizophrenic there)
plus, since i got indesign only months ago (and have layouted basic stuff) i do not claim to have "tested it to the max" (this will show over a longer time-period).
[quote]Exactly ! That's all I'm trying to say ! - get some few more features in InDesign, and the trade-off is a lower compatibility level than Quark!<hr></blockquote>
lower compatibility? with rip's or overall?
because with indesign you can open xpress docs (not the other way around), export pdf's directly (no plugin or acrobat destiller needed), export eps, export html (<g> i now work as a webdesigner/publisher and don't believe in automatic code) export svg and xml.
xpress exports eps and ps.
but i think you mean the rip.
[quote]Personally I'm lucky that I have had other people purchase Quark for me - I hate Quark's pricing as much as you !<hr></blockquote>
i never payed myself either, but i was in charge of ordering soft/hardware and thought about all those other apps and hardware we could have got with the money. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
because with indesign you can open xpress docs (not the other way around), export pdf's directly (no plugin or acrobat destiller needed), export eps, export html (<g> i now work as a webdesigner/publisher and don't believe in automatic code) export svg and xml.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes, RIP's, although presumably if you DON'T use the transparency effects, the output should be more compatable, although InDesign can't output PDF level 1.2 (which is what most RIPs run), only 1.3 and 1.4. Have you tried outputing a Postscript file in OSX from InDesign and distilling it ?
I tried importing some Quark files - a bit hit and miss, though, some stuff OK, some went a bit odd - still, better than nothing.
Of course, in 5 you can do HTML - the Web stuff is quite neat actually, especially if you just want to design the graphic front-end for a database back.
Anyway, looking forward to Quark OS X so I can A-B the two on a fair comparison !
<strong>All the good workflow apps are being made for ID anyway. It's only a matter of time till QXP dies. Good riddance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whishing QXP to die inn't smart, every company needs competition. If Indesign is there on its own it will only get minimal updates... lack of competition is wat made QXP to what it is today.
Zyrth - yes, that was the point I made earlier, with InDesign AND Quark OS X, we finally have a REAl choice, and hopefully BOTH companies will improve their software.
BTW, I'm trying to sneek around via some of the Quark Xtension companies to find out when Quark for OS X will ship - will report back !
<strong>Yes, RIP's, although presumably if you DON'T use the transparency effects, the output should be more compatable, although InDesign can't output PDF level 1.2 (which is what most RIPs run), only 1.3 and 1.4. Have you tried outputing a Postscript file in OSX from InDesign and distilling it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
pdf level 1.2 came with (i think) acrobat 3.0, in 1998.
i never found the need to destill a postscript out of indesign. exporting them directly gave me all the settings i needed 'till now.
[quote]Of course, in 5 you can do HTML - the Web stuff is quite neat actually, especially if you just want to design the graphic front-end for a database back.<hr></blockquote>
well, today almost every app can export html.
but even html-code from golive sucks (without editing).
i can only guess how the code from indesign/xpress would look like.
i'm going to look at that.
[quote]Anyway, looking forward to Quark OS X so I can A-B the two on a fair comparison !<hr></blockquote>
even if i sounded a little harsh against quark - i'll look into qx5 too.
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>If Indesign is there on its own it will only get minimal updates... lack of competition is wat made QXP to what it is today. </strong><hr></blockquote>
adobe photoshop is about standard for "pixelpushing" with little or no competition (at least in the dtp-scene in switzerland) and still managed to grow and mature over the years.
Comments
A Quark tech I spoke to recently told me the OS X version will be considerably faster than InDesign.
if you feel ok with xpress - then use xpress.
if you don't mind paying 3000.- swiss francs for a app that hardly changed over the years - then use xpress.
if you don't mind breaking your fingers (for a keyboard short) for a simple task - then use xpress.
if you want to find out how you could work better/faster - try indesign.
if you want all the features of xpress and a hole lot more - try indesign.
if you want to see how the future is gonna be - try indesign
i worked in dtp for more then ten years (with xpress and pagemaker) and allways thought that there should be a easier way to do my work.
xpress was the only professional app to get the job done in those days.
i work as a webdesigner now but still need a app to do my own stuff (my resume, cd-covers, flyers, manuals etc).
since there is no xpress on os x (arrogant %*#&'s) i tried indesign.
because i used xpress so long, i first had to get the "indesign feeling".
after you get it - you know that quark is gonna die.
indesign is like dtp could/should be.
imho
And for tables... Quark is a joke compare to indy 2. And if you do a lot of PDF... from screen-proofing to high-rez output, indy is THE champ ! No way in hell I will go back to Quark !
And don't tell me that I don't know production... I have used Quark for 10 years before switching to indy.
Maybe it's because of X too.
[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
Quark 5 and Indesign 2 are not good at tables - you need Xtensions or plug-ins to do them properly in either.
Most RIP's aren't going to like importing PSD files directly.
Transparency is a nice effect, unfortunately most RIP's don't like that either ! Ditto the shadows, too. And you can make shadows move in Quark, too - just group them !!
peve's last reply-
I don't think the choice of keyboard shortcuts would determine if I know a program will get the job done !
Apart from aforesaid transparency and shadows, I can't find anything in InDesign that isn't in Quark 5 ?
<strong>jeromba's last reply-
Quark 5 and Indesign 2 are not good at tables - you need Xtensions or plug-ins to do them properly in either.
Most RIP's aren't going to like importing PSD files directly.
Transparency is a nice effect, unfortunately most RIP's don't like that either ! Ditto the shadows, too. And you can make shadows move in Quark, too - just group them !!
peve's last reply-
I don't think the choice of keyboard shortcuts would determine if I know a program will get the job done !
Apart from aforesaid transparency and shadows, I can't find anything in InDesign that isn't in Quark 5 ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry you don't get it.
Try Indy2, try the transparency, try the shadows, try the tables, import some photoshop and some illustrator native files, output to pdf... go to your service bureau ET VOILA ! perfect page in no time...
Maybe i have too much luck but i send my pdf files to my service bureau who has two agfa accuset with an apogee rip and i have no problems at all (with all shadows and transparencies and photoshop files you can imagine). I send my PDF to my printing house for CTP and no problems at all...
Strange no ?
And i can tell you that you can't do shadows in Xpress like in Indy 2, and you can't output in PDF a 1 GB brochure in 10 minutes.
Try that.
Just do a real work in Indy and you will never go back to the 80's of publishing.
Because there is no real differences between Xpress 3.3 and Xpress 5.
You don't like the change, that's all. Admit it.
Maybe you're too old...
EDIT: You don't need to send native indy files to your friends with all the images and fonts in gentle little folders... blahblahblah
Simply send a PDF and you're set. BUT if you want to do the old way you've got a preflight and packaghing option "standard!" in indy 2.
[ 07-04-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
<img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
According to MacWorld Special Issue "Total OS X".
Page 80. Headline "Font Handling".
Written By David Progue.
First column second Paragraph.
Word for word:
" Up until now Mac OS9, a family of typefaces called bitmapped fonts was still kicking around, a hold over from the orignal 1984 Macintosh. But Mac OS X can't even use such fonts. Only always-smooth font formats work in Mac OS X, namely TrueType, Postscript Type 1, and OpenType. (The latter is a font developed by Microsoft and Adobe that's already common on Windows Machines.)
And you asked why someone would use bmap fonts?
Well I don't know about anyone else.
When you receive a file that was done on a intel box, and the fonts were provided to you by the client; however, it isn't a font that you have a mac version of (and the thought of having to preflight the job on the pc gives you cold sweats) one can using Macromedia's Fontographer create a bmap version of the font. Which then can be used on your mac.
Now Using this method one still has to be careful of re-flow issues.
Try Indy2, try the transparency, try the shadows, try the tables, import some photoshop and some illustrator native files, output to pdf... go to your service bureau ET VOILA ! perfect page in no time...
<hr></blockquote>
What I was saying is that Quark 5 CAN do all these things, and not have any pre-press related problems like InDesign 2 !
And maybe you haven't had to spend hours trying to sort out 200 page brochuire work done on programs that are NOT Quark !!
I use whatever tool works - if InDesign were (or becomes) better, especially once we see the OS X version from Quark, I would use it.
I don't like Macromedia products generally (ease of use issues), but Dreamweaver is way better than Adobe GoPoo 6 !!
[quote]
When you receive a file that was done on a intel box, and the fonts were provided to you by the client; however, it isn't a font that you have a mac version of (and the thought of having to preflight the job on the pc gives you cold sweats) one can using Macromedia's Fontographer create a bmap version of the font. Which then can be used on your mac.
<hr></blockquote>
Ah, try using TransType 2 - it converts whatever weird PC font into Mac PostScript !
<strong>I don't think the choice of keyboard shortcuts would determine if I know a program will get the job done!</strong><hr></blockquote>
my point wuz that everything in quark (and i used that crap to the max) is kind of weird, hidden and unlogical.
for the keyboard shorts you had to get your fingers broken first.
once i tried indesign - i just started working.
open your mind to something new - and then make your choise.
and for all those rips who can't handle anything else than postscript 2-stuff: get a life!
you can add a porsche engine in a model t ford - but your heading for trouble.
one last thing.
if you can't see any missing features in quark - then you havn't looked into indesign that well.
imho
what do you mean by this? are you saying that all rips can handle ps3? if so, what version of ps3 are you talking about?
There are many different versions of postscript level 3. Not all rips can handle direct input of pdfs. Not all rips who can take in pdf can take in pdf 1.4. not all rips that can take in pdf 1.4 can handle pdf 1.4 correctly. postscript of any level does not allow transparency. indesign is not all perfect. it will treat icc or csa profiles different depending on the file format. The pdf output from indesign is NOT reliable, Adobe reps have even admitted to this.
what about your last comment? some people don't have the luxury of spending time trying out indesign2, so why not instead of posting a pointless message, actually list some features that indesign has over quark?
what keyboard shortcuts are more efficient in indesign than in quark?
and quark isn't perfect either. I believe in 5 you HAVE to disable a default xtension otherwise you receive problems creating pdf or postscript, i can't remember which but i believe it was the opi xtension. right now there is absolutely NO reason to move from Quark 4.11 to Quark 5. If you need the table feauture, buy a plugin which is cheaper than the upgrade.
my point wuz that everything in quark (and i used that crap to the max) is kind of weird, hidden and unlogical.for the keyboard shorts you had to get your fingers broken first.
<hr></blockquote>
This is all rather tiring - as the last post pointed out - why not list some features InDesign has over Quark 5 if it so much better ? I'm quite happy with Quarks shortcuts and have normal fingers to prove it...
Your comment regarding level 2 RIPs is also rather odd and shows how little repro experience you obviously have - I like to have the option to send my files to any printer and be assured that they will print.
As I previously posted, I think InDesign is a good program, let down by its output which causes repro problems. It's nice to have a choice not to use Quark, but Quark 5 CAN cover most of InDesign's ground - perhaps you haven't used Quark 5 very much ?
<strong>(...) are you saying that all rips can handle ps3? if so, what version of ps3 are you talking about?(...)</strong><hr></blockquote>
i didn't want to talk details.
i only wanted to point out that:
-its no big suprise that xpress docs rip well on (older) rips - 'cause xpress didn't change that much over the years.
-its no big suprise that indesign docs can give you trouble - 'cause indesign is something completly new (with new features).
[quote]The pdf output from indesign is NOT reliable, Adobe reps have even admitted to this.<hr></blockquote>
i never had problems with pdf-output.
[quote]what about your last comment? some people don't have the luxury of spending time trying out indesign2<hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/demodnld.html"; target="_blank">- get indesign 2</a>
- install on mac
- try out in afterhours
where's the luxury?
[quote]so why not instead of posting a pointless message, actually list some features that indesign has over quark?<hr></blockquote>
pointless?
it would be pointless to list all the features
if you don't like reading - go to an apple-seminar (like driven by design)
[quote]what keyboard shortcuts are more efficient in indesign than in quark?<hr></blockquote>
i'm not gonna list all of those "shift+alt+command+mouse-pullings" here. (where there is a tool in indesign to do that)
[quote]and quark isn't perfect either. <hr></blockquote>
hey! indesign isn't perfect too!
[quote](...) right now there is absolutely NO reason to move from Quark 4.11 to Quark 5. If you need the table feature<hr></blockquote>
there is more to indesign then tables.
[quote]buy a plugin which is cheaper than the upgrade.<hr></blockquote>
or buy a product that features all those little cool things.
i don't work for adobe.
there are many things in indesign that need work from adobe and other companies.
but: looking back on the years with xpress - how much did you pay and how much did you get?
indesign is my choice.
<strong>(...)Your comment regarding level 2 RIPs is also rather odd and shows how little repro experience you obviously have - I like to have the option to send my files to any printer and be assured that they will print.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
lithografer-apprenteship (is that spelled right?) from 1986 to 1990 and worked since in a couple of dtp companies.
come on! don't start flaming in here.
[quote](...)perhaps you haven't used Quark 5 very much ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
that is true.
i have waited to long for features that are standard in other apps.
i'm not giving any money to quark anymore....
hey wait!
i think this disscusion is getting off-hand here.
perhaps because my neck is hurting (ç*"&"%).
lets be polite.
You said initially that you haven't had any output problems from InDesign, then you also said that:
[quote]
its no big surprise that indesign docs can give you trouble - 'cause indesign is something completely new (with new features).
<hr></blockquote>
Exactly ! That's all I'm trying to say ! - get some few more features in InDesign, and the trade-off is a lower compatibility level than Quark ! Personally I'm lucky that I have had other people purchase Quark for me - I hate Quark's pricing as much as you !
<strong>Sorry if I sounded impolite, but I was trying to make the point that you have to make a choice here</strong><hr></blockquote>
i still love you all
"choice" is my point too.
everybody has to make his/her choice based on what the person wants to do with the app.
indesign is far from perfect - but i think it's better then xpress. (imho)
for me indesign:
-is less complicated and more intuitive (more productive)
-is far less expensive (i have payed thousands of swissfranks over the years for an app that hardly chaged or gained features (and the support was almost non existant))
-has basic features that xpress wasn't able to (didn't care to) implement.
[quote]You said initially that you haven't had any output problems from InDesign, then you also said that:
<peve>its no big surprise that indesign docs can give you trouble - 'cause indesign is something completely new (with new features).</peve><hr></blockquote>
yes, 'till now i never had problems with output (pdf, color- b/w-laserprinter and exposure on film.
but, i am a dtp-guy.
i'm always thinking in "worse case terms" (if you recieved the junk i have from so-called graficdesigners you would too) and therefore i'm never to optimistic.
on the other hand: in the end i always got a solution. (guess i'm a little chizophrenic there)
plus, since i got indesign only months ago (and have layouted basic stuff) i do not claim to have "tested it to the max" (this will show over a longer time-period).
[quote]Exactly ! That's all I'm trying to say ! - get some few more features in InDesign, and the trade-off is a lower compatibility level than Quark!<hr></blockquote>
lower compatibility? with rip's or overall?
because with indesign you can open xpress docs (not the other way around), export pdf's directly (no plugin or acrobat destiller needed), export eps, export html (<g> i now work as a webdesigner/publisher and don't believe in automatic code) export svg and xml.
xpress exports eps and ps.
but i think you mean the rip.
[quote]Personally I'm lucky that I have had other people purchase Quark for me - I hate Quark's pricing as much as you !<hr></blockquote>
i never payed myself either, but i was in charge of ordering soft/hardware and thought about all those other apps and hardware we could have got with the money. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
lower compatibility? with rip's or overall?
because with indesign you can open xpress docs (not the other way around), export pdf's directly (no plugin or acrobat destiller needed), export eps, export html (<g> i now work as a webdesigner/publisher and don't believe in automatic code) export svg and xml.
<hr></blockquote>
Yes, RIP's, although presumably if you DON'T use the transparency effects, the output should be more compatable, although InDesign can't output PDF level 1.2 (which is what most RIPs run), only 1.3 and 1.4. Have you tried outputing a Postscript file in OSX from InDesign and distilling it ?
I tried importing some Quark files - a bit hit and miss, though, some stuff OK, some went a bit odd - still, better than nothing.
Of course, in 5 you can do HTML - the Web stuff is quite neat actually, especially if you just want to design the graphic front-end for a database back.
Anyway, looking forward to Quark OS X so I can A-B the two on a fair comparison !
<strong>All the good workflow apps are being made for ID anyway. It's only a matter of time till QXP dies. Good riddance.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Whishing QXP to die inn't smart, every company needs competition. If Indesign is there on its own it will only get minimal updates... lack of competition is wat made QXP to what it is today.
BTW, I'm trying to sneek around via some of the Quark Xtension companies to find out when Quark for OS X will ship - will report back !
<strong>Yes, RIP's, although presumably if you DON'T use the transparency effects, the output should be more compatable, although InDesign can't output PDF level 1.2 (which is what most RIPs run), only 1.3 and 1.4. Have you tried outputing a Postscript file in OSX from InDesign and distilling it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
pdf level 1.2 came with (i think) acrobat 3.0, in 1998.
i never found the need to destill a postscript out of indesign. exporting them directly gave me all the settings i needed 'till now.
[quote]Of course, in 5 you can do HTML - the Web stuff is quite neat actually, especially if you just want to design the graphic front-end for a database back.<hr></blockquote>
well, today almost every app can export html.
but even html-code from golive sucks (without editing).
i can only guess how the code from indesign/xpress would look like.
i'm going to look at that.
[quote]Anyway, looking forward to Quark OS X so I can A-B the two on a fair comparison !<hr></blockquote>
even if i sounded a little harsh against quark - i'll look into qx5 too.
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>If Indesign is there on its own it will only get minimal updates... lack of competition is wat made QXP to what it is today. </strong><hr></blockquote>
adobe photoshop is about standard for "pixelpushing" with little or no competition (at least in the dtp-scene in switzerland) and still managed to grow and mature over the years.
but basicly: yes, industrie works that way.
what a bad world....<sniff>
<strong>
well, today almost every app can export html.
but even html-code from golive sucks (without editing).
i can only guess how the code from indesign/xpress would look like.
i'm going to look at that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
tried html export with indesign.
i guessed right.
i hope qxp5 generates better html-code.