Designers: Have you given up Quark for InDesign?

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 57
    discodisco Posts: 83member
    I'm happy to say that the design firm I work for is dumping Quark like a cheating lover. There are 15 G5's being prepped for deployment right now and none of them will have Quark installed on it. We'll have only one old G4 around running Quark, in case we need to unarchive/modify older jobs.



    One of our clients had just deployed 25 seats of Quark 6 and quickly realized what a mistake they made. It's the last cent that Quark will ever get from them.



    Frankly, I'd love to see Quark die a long, tortured death.
  • Reply 22 of 57
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    Even I am not heavy on print stuff but I still did manage to convince FOUR print designers to use InDesign and ditch XPress like a plague
  • Reply 23 of 57
    Time is money. Quark is fast, works on the back-end with no problems (if you know what you are doing) and Most printers I know, have had TONS of problems with InDesign and it's files. Plus alot of people are pissed that they cannot save their files backwards to older versions of ID. I am interested to see what pans out in the future. If you are in print in any degree, need to get things done FAST and need things to work with as few glitches, hitches, etc on the back end in prepress or at the RIP, stay Quark. Not saying don't learn ID, things progressing. Keep in mind you can make PDF's right out of Quark 6 WITHOUT and Adobe or third party solution. If you are a professional in the feild and make money at what you do, you are probably using Quark. I think ID has potential, but has not shown enough stability to warrant me or my firm to buy another copy, yet.



    Again, my 99 cents.





  • Reply 24 of 57
    kedakeda Posts: 722member
    My company has switched to ID 100%. I do multimedia, not print, but I work very closely with those guys and support their machines. They have been extremely happy with ID.
  • Reply 25 of 57
    jesperasjesperas Posts: 524member
    We're still on OS9, and use Quark. I've heard rumors that we'll be officially "switched" to ID when we get new G5s in, and move over to OS X.



    However, since we work with a lot of freelancers and suppliers that use Quark, we--or, at least the designers I work with in-house--will most likely have both Quark and ID on our machines.
  • Reply 26 of 57
    admactaniumadmactanium Posts: 812member
    at my last job our whole ad agency switched to indesign at 1.5 that was a harsh switch but i was the early adopter for the office because i'm pretty sure the future is in indesign rather than quark. so for our whole agency we switched about 15 art directors and 25 or so studio systems to indesign when we went to os x. NEARLY everyone who switched was happier with indesign.



    i had a lot of issues with indesign when we switched and had a direct line to the software developers at adobe since we were one of the first major sites to make the switch. unfortunately, i've actually forgotten the issues i had with indesign in which i preferred the quark method. i just learned workarounds and forgot how it was "supposed" to work in quark.



    personally, i think quark can go jump off a bridge. i think they essentially sat on their asses because they were the dominant product and didn't care very much at all about making quark any better. in fact, it got noticeably worse from 3.3 on. i consider them the syquest of this era. they got complacent, continued to gouge their customers and now they're going to be extinct.
  • Reply 27 of 57
    gsxrboygsxrboy Posts: 565member
    Indesign 2.0x in, Quark out.. The pricing of Quark in Australia is astronomical.
  • Reply 28 of 57
    scottibscottib Posts: 381member
    My GF has used Quark from its inception till ID 2.0 was released. For a while, she used Quark v.4.x, v.5, and ID concurrently, then dropped Quark outright (though we still have a box with Quark for past projects if need be).



    She's been interviewing for teaching positions at design programs across the country, and all use ID solely in the labs and for instruction--though, I believe this is due to cost and not software merits.
  • Reply 29 of 57
    scottibscottib Posts: 381member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton

    Use FreeHand. It's like Illustrator (only better IMHO) with multiple pages and master pages.



    My GF loves FreeHand--though it seems a bit clunky in X--but we don't have the 2004 version.
  • Reply 30 of 57
    zodiaczodiac Posts: 138member
    I use indesign 2 but i have never tried quark.
  • Reply 31 of 57
    tonton,



    I would have to disagree with you completely in telling people to use FreeHand over InDesign or Quark for single page composition. FreeHand and Illustrator are vector programs where you create art (dies and packaging are also created best in theses programs). You can put pages together in them but it isn't as good as Quark or InDesign.



    Are you working as a prepress operator? I am surprised because I don't know any prepress or printing company that actually prints pages out of FreeHand or Illustrator and I have worked for lots of printing companies, prepress shops and design firms. They open them up and resave the files (or in FreeHands case export them as an EPS file) and then pull them into Quark or InDesign in order to RIP them to film. So what you are recommending adds more steps in prepress which in the long run takes more time which in the end equals higher prepress costs. So a smart designer will build their artwork and individual pieces in Illustrator or FreeHand and then build their pages in Quark or InDesign.



    The way FreeHand handles images is horrible which is another reason to not use FreeHand for Page Composition. In fact most designers don't even use FreeHand anymore because Macromedia is more focused on web features than on features for print. FreeHand lost the war with Illustrator a long time ago because people are more comfortable with Adobe's interface than the unintuitive Macromedia interface. FreeHand has a few nice features but it is no Illustrator.



    Telling people to use FreeHand to build pages like telling a carpenter to use a screwdriver to hammer nails. Yes, a hammer and a screwdriver are both tools and yes you can hammer nails in with both of them but one is actually made for the job while the other is really used for something else. Usually the best tool for the job is the one that was made specifically for that job.
  • Reply 32 of 57
    dobbydobby Posts: 794member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by tonton



    Even Worse -- NEVER use Quark or ID for packaging!!!!!




    Esko Graphics provides excellent packaging software.



    Dobby/
  • Reply 33 of 57
    kirklandkirkland Posts: 594member
    My company transitioned our entire 30-Mac production department over to InDesign 2 (and on the ad machines Adobe Design Collection) last summer, and haven't looked back. InDesign 2 is such a more powerful design and creation tool, and it doesn't have the inflexibility and general crashiness we had suffered under with Quark. And we didn't have to wait until last fall to move to OS X.



    We're much happier, and our newspaper looks much, much better.
  • Reply 34 of 57
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    i'm looking to get back into the workforce and it seems all the companies want XPress, NONE of them list InDesign.



    My question is, what version of XPress? none of the ads state which version. Just wondering if I do need to get the OS X compatiable version
  • Reply 35 of 57
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by burningwheel

    i'm looking to get back into the workforce and it seems all the companies want XPress, NONE of them list InDesign.



    My question is, what version of XPress? none of the ads state which version. Just wondering if I do need to get the OS X compatiable version




    Well, there's two issues here really.



    One is technical superiority. It's difficult to argue that Quark 6 (latest version, OS X only) is a better piece of software than InDesign CS (latest version, OS X only). InDesign has pulled ahead on so many fronts?both advanced gee-whiz features (transparency, seamless placement of Photoshop documents with trans. backgrounds -- far fewer, if any, clipping paths necessary) and bread-and-butter features (superior multiline type composition, Preview mode, superior PDF creation, drag and drop image import, thoughtful UI, on and on...) that in my mind there's little question which is better, technically speaking.



    Two is market reality. Quark still has a very strong grip on the market, and the vast majority of design firms, newspapers, and agencies still use Quark. Especially those still using OS 9. The question is, when those companies at last move to OS X, will they stay with Quark or move to InDesign? That's something of an open question?I've seen examples of both.



    Personally, I'd say you should be familiar (and capable) with both at this point. Realistically, unless the place you want to work at is new, independently-minded, far-thinking, and/or cutting edge, there's a good chance they'll be using Quark. But I'm honestly not sure for how long.



    Oh, and version numbers... No, I can't say it really matters whether you learn Quark on OS X (version 6) or previous versions, as long as it's version 3.3+. Quark has not changed tremendously in the last seven years.
  • Reply 36 of 57
    burningwheelburningwheel Posts: 1,827member
    thanks Hobbes. i have 3.3 so i'll just brush up on that and maybe purchase inDesign.
  • Reply 37 of 57
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    indesign for me, too. however, cs seems to be way more sensitive to fonts that version 2 was. then again, version 2 would often flat-out ignore some fonts, so i'm not sure what the problem is. maybe it's suitcase. maybe i should just go back to moving my fonts into and out of my font directory by hand, old-school style.
  • Reply 38 of 57
    iSwitched
  • Reply 39 of 57
    jabohnjabohn Posts: 541member
    We use InDesign at both our offices for our Print Shop.



    InDesignCS is buggy, has some feature inconsistencies, crashes occasionally and has problems exporting to PDF's, but it simply blows Quark 6 away over all.



    One main reason: Quark 6's method for selecting printers bypasses the OS X's printing engine (instead, it assumes the PPD files you have installed are the same as the printers you have installed). It will not print to our RIP. After you hit PRINT, the file goes off into oblivion. It prints to our laser printer though.
  • Reply 40 of 57


    jabohn: \t



    Quote:

    We use InDesign at both our offices for our Print Shop.



    InDesignCS is buggy, has some feature inconsistencies, crashes occasionally and has problems exporting to PDF's, but it simply blows Quark 6 away over all.



    One main reason: Quark 6's method for selecting printers bypasses the OS X's printing engine (instead, it assumes the PPD files you have installed are the same as the printers you have installed). It will not print to our RIP. After you hit PRINT, the file goes off into oblivion. It prints to our laser printer though.



    Well, again, no disrespect, but if you know what you are doing (meaning you make money doing design or prepress) you should have little to no problems with Quark, or it's files. I have been doing this for over 10 years and I can count the problems with Quark on both hands. Most of them very small and petty, all figured out quickly.



    Not one printer, if asked candidly off the record (meaning not getting paid from someone who wants to print these files) will say 'Yes, we love InDesign, ditch Quark.' Fact of the matter is, it still has a maturity level to reach. It's still a baby compared to Quark, sure it can 'look cool' but on the back-end where time is BIG MONEY, why waste time trying to get InDesign files to work? Every printer I currently do work with (even some that get spot work here and there) all dislike InDesign on the back-end. More problems than it's worth.



    I am not discounting InDesign and will acknowledge that it has wooed many-a-designer away (I have also learned it, but still HATE it), but if you can't use serveral of the features in print and your design skills rely on these whiz-bang features, what does that really accomplish? Just because it can be done in the software, does not mean it will work in print, nor does the softwares ability to perform these visual feats mean that it is good design.



    I admittedly learned it out of curiosity, but as of this moment in time and with it's current array of instabilities, problems and general lack of 'maturity' as a software suite goes, I'll take a pass.





    Again, my 99 cents.





Sign In or Register to comment.