InDesign v. QuarkXPress: checkmate
hey folks, long time no post, but i just gotta share.
while my friend and i were waiting for our machines to reboot after a quark 4 crash (ahem), we got to talking about how indesign is a pretty wicked program, but quark has such a stranglehold on the design and print industry, that adobe's got a hell of a hill to climb. y'know, the same thought s we've all had.
and then it hit us...
y'know how adobe had screwed over quark once and for all? the one masterstroke that will have them catch up to quark much faster than any of us anticipated? and it doesn't make any difference whether quark comes out with a carbonized version of quark tomorrow.
i'll give you a hint... go take any quark file you have, and make a pdf. i'll wait...
finished? cool. bet you used distiller, didn't you? exactly. and while acrobat 5 is carbonized, distiller ISN't, and probably never will be, since all other adobe app's can save as PDF by default.
quark would either have to license the pdf file format from adobe for either a lot of cash (adobe wins), or rely on distiller out of the classic environment for the rest of eternity (and adobe still wins). quark MIGHT be able to fashion something out of mac os x's ability to save print previews as pdf's, which may be their only hope at this point.
otherwise, it's adobe... game, set, match.
while my friend and i were waiting for our machines to reboot after a quark 4 crash (ahem), we got to talking about how indesign is a pretty wicked program, but quark has such a stranglehold on the design and print industry, that adobe's got a hell of a hill to climb. y'know, the same thought s we've all had.
and then it hit us...
y'know how adobe had screwed over quark once and for all? the one masterstroke that will have them catch up to quark much faster than any of us anticipated? and it doesn't make any difference whether quark comes out with a carbonized version of quark tomorrow.
i'll give you a hint... go take any quark file you have, and make a pdf. i'll wait...
finished? cool. bet you used distiller, didn't you? exactly. and while acrobat 5 is carbonized, distiller ISN't, and probably never will be, since all other adobe app's can save as PDF by default.
quark would either have to license the pdf file format from adobe for either a lot of cash (adobe wins), or rely on distiller out of the classic environment for the rest of eternity (and adobe still wins). quark MIGHT be able to fashion something out of mac os x's ability to save print previews as pdf's, which may be their only hope at this point.
otherwise, it's adobe... game, set, match.
Comments
and btw it's muuuuuuch faster to do a pdf in inDesign than in XPress (+distiller)
For the moment i'm making 3 full brochures in inDesign in CMYK with transparency, drop shadows and so on... hoping for the best or i will loose a lot of money if it''s not ok when i'll give the files to the press for CTP ...
Daniel
[ 04-21-2002: Message edited by: Daniel ]</p>
Quark might want to license someone else's implementation, simply because PDF is a bit too complicated for a bored programmer to implement on a rainy Saturday. Or they might be able to build a complete implementation on top of Apple's. We'll probably find out late this year, when Quark will (allegedly) roll out a Carbonized XPress.
and yeah, there are some basic built-in pdf features in mac os x (e.g. snaps pro x suggests using apple's print preview.../save as... pdf), which is why i said that might be a workaround solution for the short-term.
The options in InDesign seem very extensive. It gives you several default settings (print, press, screen, etc) and then lets you customize those settings as well. Can the built-in distiller features in OS X do a PDF suitable for prepress? I thought it was screen only (I've never used it so may be wrong).
I would take InDesign over Quark simply for its ability to render EPS and TIFF files accurately on-screen. It brought tears to my eyes. Long live InDesign!
BTW, I have sent several large InDesign files for prepress and have heard no complaints.
<a href="http://www.quark.com/support/downloads/details.jsp?idx=439"; target="_blank">http://www.quark.com/support/downloads/details.jsp?idx=439</a>;
<strong>Rok, please do some research before you post on this, XPress already has a direct save to PDF and has for some time. Also, as pointed out, Distiller has a lot of options for creating PDF from PS files, and can parse pdfmark (if you don't know, then you shouldn't be posting about PDF creation at all) which no other Adobe app can do.
<a href="http://www.quark.com/support/downloads/details.jsp?idx=439"; target="_blank">http://www.quark.com/support/downloads/details.jsp?idx=439</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
True you can make pdf from quark, but InDesign is still not reliant of distiller:
clive, get that stick out of your bum, and realize that what i am saying is what EVERY TRADE PUBLICATION IN THE FREE WORLD KNOWS... Quark's "pdf support" is relegated to an XTension that merely sends a postscript file to Acrobat Distiller. Dont' buy Acrobat, and you cannot make PDFs from Quark. and until version 5.0, the PDF filter was an optional download from Quark's website. so out of the box, no, Quark cannot do anything more than i can do with any other application that can print (i.e. generate a .ps file)
wow, that's some great PDF support Quark has built-in, huh?
and to be honest, i prevent Quark's PDF filter from generating anything more than the postscript, and manually drag the .ps file into Distiller to quickly switch between a dozen different compression and format settings for client.
Additionally, as I also pointed out, Distiller is required to parse pdfmark.
InDesign isn't going to steal XPress's market until it has some compelling features - not it does a few things better than XPress, but that it does everything XPress does, and more. Frankly whether one or the other of these apps is Carbonised or not is neither here nor there - the prepress market isn't ready to move to X yet anyway.
<strong>I don't think you're really getting anywhere with your argument. Quark requires Distiller, *anything* requires Distiller to write decent PDF and have multiple watched folders etc.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
oh, and you are getting somewhere with YOUR argument? by all means, please enlighten all of us with your vast knowledge of "pdfmark," rather than just slinging around buzzwords is some sort of pissing contest.
and, actually, illustrator 10 and indesign 2 make great perfectly usable pdfs for any of my or my studio's needs, and we've never heard any complaints from our service providers, once we switched to illustrator 10 and indesign 2. they do lack the ability to use watched folders, but i get by just fine.
[edit] aw hell, i was going to do on a little ranting speech, but to hell with it; i've got work to do. just save whatever you have to say. i'm tired of reading your posts. don't like what i have to say? disagree? fine. then don't reply to my post. et it die a natural death. or reply with a little more depth than "do your research."
if i'm wrong, fine. but comments like "do your research" are belittling and, while i have pointed out but you refuse to acknowledge, inaccurate. all it does is try to incite a retaliatory respone, and i guess i fell for it. not the first time... guess i'll never learn.
[ 04-23-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
Daniel