Designers: Have you given up Quark for InDesign?

in Mac Software edited January 2014
I'm still hanging onto Quark...for now.

Sure there's lots of bravado going on about how InDesign is making inroads. I'm trying to separate the hype from reality. So where best to start but to ask designers. Is there an actual momentum swing and are you switching to InDesign?


  • Reply 1 of 57
    othelloothello Posts: 1,053member
    i switched with ID 1.0 and have not looked back. far better than quark IMHO...
  • Reply 2 of 57

    I'll tell you I have been a die hard Quark user for years doing both pre-press and graphic design. When InDesign first came out I tried it and I thought it sucked pretty bad. Version 1.5 was better but still not all that great. Version 2 was much better and showing that Adobe was actually listening to what the users were saying. InDesign CS is pretty awesome, I can only image that it will continue to get better and better. It does seem to me that InDesign does run a little slower than Quark but it might just be me. The most annoying thing is that you can't save InDesign files from CS down to InDesign 2.

    Quark Xpress on the other hand has let me down. I loved Quark 3.3 and when they released Version 4 even though it had some bugs I loved it. Quark was fast and very reliable, way better than PageMaker. Quark then moved their production overseas to India and then sometime later Quark 5 came out. Quark 5 is okay but I would say it is a step down from 4. Quark 5 had quite a few bugs. Recently I have been using Quark 6 and so far I am not impressed. The features that they have added don't really seem all that useful to me. I have always wondered why you can only convert one line of text at a time to outlines (Quark calls it Text to Box but that is what it is). I had hoped that this would change but it is still the same as it was 2 versions ago. It is nice to have Quark working under OS X but I had hoped that Quark would do something impressive with Quark 6 but instead it is just Quark 5 carbonized.

    I will continue to use Quark because most of my clients still use it but I do find myself using InDesign more and more. Everyone says that Quark is dying and that everyone is switching to InDesign. Most of the companies that I do work for still use Quark but I think that slowly word is spreading about how good InDesign is becoming. If Adobe keeps up with the good work I will switch for good.

    One thing I don't understand is why does Adobe and Quark put so much time and money into building Web-features into their software? I don't know anyone who uses these programs to create Web pages. If someone is a designer and they are doing web pages then they probably know either GoLive or Dreamweaver. Instead of spending all that time and effort on worthless features why don't Adobe and Quark add more useful features to their programs? Does anyone here use InDesign or Quark to build web pages?
  • Reply 3 of 57
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member
    From the two people I know who do print design, both have switched to Indesign.

    I also hear that first time users pickup InDesign more easier than Quark. The Quark installer base is huge, all print shops use it. Print shops and prepress houses are conservative in upgrading their software (once it runs well). So what I think is:

    1. InDesign mainly will make inroads with new users, due to the CS 'package deal', price and ease of use.

    2. Designers in general seem to prefer InDesign.

    3. Print shops will mainly continue to use (older versions of) Quark, but the installer base will slowly erode when the shops will buy new computers and migrate to OSX (or Windows).
  • Reply 4 of 57
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    The only copies of quark I know of at work and in my social group will likely soon be upgraded to indesign.
  • Reply 5 of 57
    mattyjmattyj Posts: 898member
    To Indesign. Both my sister and I. Quark was great in the OS9 days, simply isn't the case now.
  • Reply 6 of 57
    moogsmoogs Posts: 4,296member
    Switched over last version and have since convinced two other designers to have their business switch over. Quark sucks and any service provider who isn't recognizing that at this point is just lazy.

    They ultimately control the rate at which people will change, but they'd rather stick with their outdated workflow for another 5 years. To them that's better than making some changes that may cause a few client frustrations in the short-term, but pay big dividends once their clients are shown the light.
  • Reply 7 of 57
    Part of the problem that service providers have with InDesign comes from Transparency. Many RIP's have a problem with files that use Transparency. This problem is also with Illustrator but with Illustrator you can save the file down to a version below Illustrator 9 and it will flatten your artwork and get rid of the Transparency. Adobe should have handled this better than they did with InDesign.

    I would guess that many service providers are using RIP's that use PostScript 2 and I don't believe that PostScript 2 supports Transparency like PostScript 3 does.

    I think too that many people thought that InDesign would be like PageMaker. There are probably more people out there that absolutely love PageMaker more than InDesign and Quark combined but I have to tell you it is almost the worst graphic arts related software available. And to think it was considered a "Professional Application". Looking back at Adobe's track record with PageMaker I think most places were waiting to see how InDesign was going before jumping in and supporting it.
  • Reply 8 of 57
    At the University that I attend, they have stopped teaching Quark in the Digital Print Productions course. It's all Adobe products now, which I don't mind.
  • Reply 9 of 57
    I use Quark, tried to use ID 1, 1.5, 2 but not CS. CS looks impressive. But from the feedback I get from all my co-workers and other designers, ID has major issues with printers. I think the only thing stopping me is the fact is operates too much like PM and I hated PM. IF they would make it behave like quark with regards to text boxes and picture boxes, I'd be happy, and take a bigger plunge. But after paying for ID1, upgrade to the others...not gonna waste any more time or money until they get their act together. I know Quark is scrambling to play the same game and not to lose any more users. 7 is on the way (when???)

    that's my 99 cents.

  • Reply 10 of 57
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    InDesign CS... all the way to the bank...
  • Reply 11 of 57
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member

    Originally posted by tommy_thompson

    (Quark) 7 is on the way (when???)

    2007 ?
  • Reply 12 of 57
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    InDesign CS is much better than Quark 6.

    As with any new software -- but esp. layout software -- you should do a gauntlet of tests with your printer, and make sure everything runs though OK.

    There's an excellent review of ID (and comparisons to Quark) by Beige over here.
  • Reply 13 of 57
    arbernautarbernaut Posts: 182member

    Most printers and repro companies I use would rather have a properly prepared PDF to print from rather than an InDesign file, and InDesign CS produces excellent PDFs. Save as Acrobat 4 files with hi-res transparency flattening and even the most conservative of RIPs will chomp through it.

    InDesign CS is a dream to use with so many thoughtful features that designers actually want, and the best typographic controls you could ever wish for.

    The first couple of versions were admittedly slow and buggy, but with version 2, the speed picked up and CS is pretty nippy. Still not as fast as XPress on a good day, but each release gets closer. And to be honest, because the environment itself is a joy to work in, you won't really notice the few percent speed difference.

    Many of the print designers I've spoken to are converting to InDesign, and those that aren't either have really old OS9 Macs, or are tied into legacy XTensions and eye InDesign with jealousy...

    The king is dead. Long live the king.
  • Reply 14 of 57
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    i was thining of getting XPress, i can pick it up for $250. i haven't really used XPress due to be out of the workforce for a while but hoping to get back into it.

    never used ID
  • Reply 15 of 57
    You can properly prepare a PDF without InDesign. Some may fail to realize that IF you use any sort of transparency or a number of other 'postscript 3-only' features, most printers have a hard time with them. You can preflight files with Acrobat 6 professional, this works regardless of which software you are using, as long as you can exprot a .ps file (postscript). Myself having cut my teeth in prepress and have kept very tight tabs on tech in printing, have gotten to see first hand what nightmares can happen with all of the 'whiz-bang' features of ID. Don't get me wrong, ID has MANY MORE featuers than Quark currently has. I am hoping that when 7 comes out, that it will have more tricks up it's sleeve. I know of several places that are getting to use betas of Quark 7 and I personally hope that it is close at hand, due to all of the recent price drops for Quark 6. That being said, it is all speculative and hopeful. I think that getting spanked pretty hard by users who left for ID, I think that is giving Quark a kick in the @$$ to restore innovation to the DTP arena, which was and is SORELY needed.

    Again, my 99 cents.

    P.S. If you can get Quark for $250.00, take it and RUN FOR THE DOOR!
  • Reply 16 of 57
    cooopcooop Posts: 390member
    The Daily Trojan (University of Southern California's student newspaper) is switching to InDesign next year, and I personally couldn't be happier (never did like Quark).
  • Reply 17 of 57
    trowatrowa Posts: 176member
    Adobe has done a splendid job making Indesign a better product through each revision.

    I stopped using Quark when they bought mTropolis and killed it for no reason. Plus, I can't stand Quark's interface.
  • Reply 18 of 57

    I completely agree with you. InDesign does have many great features but are they really features if you can't use them? How many designers think "Oh, wow I can use the Transparency settings to make this look great" only to find out that it won't go through a RIP. There are ways to get around the Transparency issue but of course it requires more time at the prepress stage and if I remember Time is Money.

    One of the greatest features of InDesign CS is the Preview Separations Panel (also in Acrobat 6). That is great and a wonderful tool for Prepress Techs. InDesign has come a long way in a short amount of time.

    I still get the feeling every-time I use InDesign I feel like Adobe said "Let's merge PageMaker and Illustrator into one program and call it InDesign". I love Illustrator but I hate PageMaker and so I am torn.
  • Reply 19 of 57
    newnew Posts: 3,244member

    Originally posted by Dr VanNostran

    I still get the feeling every-time I use InDesign I feel like Adobe said "Let's merge PageMaker and Illustrator into one program and call it InDesign". I love Illustrator but I hate PageMaker and so I am torn.

    Yeah, its like sometimes I wish they just added a "pages" feature to illustrator...
  • Reply 20 of 57
    neutrino23neutrino23 Posts: 1,535member
    I am just getting started with this and I am using InDesign CS. Some of what I liked about it was the extensive AppleScript support and the support for PDF viewed on computers. I find that my output is drifting from mostly prints to a blend of print and CD publishing.

    I have heard that my company is still using Quark. They tried ID but it wouldn't work with their printing company. Don't know the details. I suspect they will keep trying. For similar reasons they are still mostly using OS 9.
Sign In or Register to comment.