# More than Word, less than InDesign



## Durbrow (Nov 8, 2004)

Can someone kindly recommend a page layout program (for printing, not web) that has more DPT features than Word but is cheaper and simpler than InDesign? Note that as I used special Croatian/Bosnian fonts with funny accents I cannot use RagTime. I don't think I can use a multilingual program like Nisus Express or Mellel because they are not really for layout. Any help gratefully appreciated. For a good cause (refugee assistance). Thanks.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 8, 2004)

I heard BBEdit is a great program.


----------



## mdnky (Nov 8, 2004)

There's not much out there that fits you requirements, sad to say.  What will you use it for most of the time?  In that I mean is there a specific task that comes to mind?

I'd stick with InDesign.  You can gab a copy of ID2 on E-Bay for a good price now-a-days, since it's "older technology".  ID2 is pretty easy to use and you don't have to use all the feature is you don't want to.

I was able to teach 2 Realtors® how to use ID2 to create flyers in a matter of an hour.  Now, if you've ever done any work for Realtors® (design or technical) you'll understand why that's important.  Most of them are generally the least technology savvy people I've meet of any group.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 8, 2004)

You could also check www.versiontracker.com under "word processing" and see what comes up. You might find some good free/shareware that fits your needs.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 8, 2004)

Real Estate agents designing their own flyers. What has the world come to


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 8, 2004)

What about something like AppleWorks?


----------



## Pengu (Nov 8, 2004)

What about um.. omnigraffle?
or try the Create suite. http://www.stone.com/Create/Create.html


----------



## mdnky (Nov 9, 2004)

Natobasso said:
			
		

> Real Estate agents designing their own flyers. What has the world come to



Nah...got sick of them handing me Word docs that looked like U know what and then they expected them to print OK.  Now they can hand out nice PDFs to the printer and I can worry about other things than the silly flyers.


----------



## Durbrow (Nov 9, 2004)

Thanks for suggesting OmniGrapple but I believe it does not have text flow (from one text box to another). Is that correct? Also thanks for pointing me to Create! I think there is a discount for .mac members. Is that correct?


----------



## Crusty (Nov 12, 2004)

As much as i despise microsoft programs...I might suggest microsoft publisher if such a thing exists for mac or mabe pagemaker which i do know is available for the mac as somewhere in between programs for u


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 12, 2004)

There's also a cheap app (go to www.machome.com for more info) called OpenOSX Office 1.5, http://openosx.com. Benefits: 95% of Microsoft Office functionality; costs only $35. Drawbacks: A little buggy.

Not bad though, and perfect for your needs!


----------



## mdnky (Nov 13, 2004)

Guys, he's asking for a DTP/layout program, not a word processor.  As sad as it is to admit, Word pretty much beats everything else out there when using it to lay stuff out (which isn't a WP program's strong point).

The only good layout programs for the most part are InDesign, Quark, and PageMaker.  He definitely doesn't want to hassle with the learning curves on Quark or PageMaker if he's worried about InDesign being too advanced.

ID can be as simple or as complex as you need/want it to be.  As far as the text-flow thing you mentioned, ID-CS is the only program I've used that has it.  Previous versions of ID didn't.

After looking at the features in Create and it's price ($149), I'd say forget that.  Spend another $30 to $50 and get InDesign.

-----

ID-CS on ebay, says full unopened unregistered non-acedemic upgrade version.  Current price is $99 with $15 for shipping.  If you use the buy-it-now at $135, they'll ship free.  

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=86732&item=7112829007&rd=1

Just buy a copy of 1.0 that's still sealed for (some on ebay for around $40), then buy the CS upgrade.  The retail on the upgrade is $169 from Adobe.

http://search.ebay.com/indesign-mac_W0QQsokeywordredirectZ1QQfromZR8

So if you get it for $115 shipped, then have to spend $40 on ver. 1 + say $10 shipping, total cost will be $165.  Only $15 more than Create, and 1,000,000 times of a better investment IMO.


----------



## texanpenguin (Nov 15, 2004)

QuarkXPress has had textbox linking since at least version 4.

As useless as QXP is these days for designers, old versions are perfectly good for people who just want accurate layout functions. Version 4 is perfectly capable, and noone can accuse it of having a complex interface.

If you understand text boxes having text in them, and picture boxes having pictures in them, then you understand QXP for simple things.

Surely you should be able to pick up single-licence copies of v4 on the net for next to nothing now that it's a couple of revisions behind.

Word to the wary: it does require classic unless you can afford v6, which I would assume you cannot. Regardless, it runs fine in classic.


----------



## Viro (Nov 15, 2004)

Natobasso said:
			
		

> There's also a cheap app (go to www.machome.com for more info) called OpenOSX Office 1.5, http://openosx.com. Benefits: 95% of Microsoft Office functionality; costs only $35. Drawbacks: A little buggy.
> 
> Not bad though, and perfect for your needs!



Do *not* ever buy anything from OpenOSX. Never ever! Never ever ever! Just look around the web and see the comments of customers. Many have never received the product after paying, all get no support and emails go unanswered.

Besides, the stuff that they're selling is Abiword, Gnumeric and other programs that you can easily get for free. Just install them via fink whic is a very simple process. 

Again, never ever buy anything from OpenOSX. I know of no one (apart from the developers themselves?) who has anything good to say abou them.


----------



## RacerX (Nov 15, 2004)

mdnky said:
			
		

> After looking at the features in Create and it's price ($149), I'd say forget that.  Spend another $30 to $50 and get InDesign.
> 
> -----
> 
> ...


Well, I'm a long time Create user who teaches people how to use both InDesign and QuarkXPress (and PageMaker, though no one has asked for help with that product in a long time). On my primary system, I do not have a copy of InDesign, QuarkXPress, PageMaker or _Illustrator_ as Create is a functional replacement for all of them.

As someone who knows how to make all these (and more) apps sing, I find it hard to understand how you (someone who has obviously not taken the time to learn Create) would qualify a comment like _1,000,000 times of a better investment IMO_.

Create paid for itself in _demo mode_ in one job (web design project) three years ago. I haven't had to pay a single cent for it since then (going from version 10.x to 11.x to 12.x). Stone Design's free upgrades for life mean that you'll never be chasing expensive upgrades, and if you join us at the Stone Design forums, you can talk to the primary designer of the app himself... Andrew Stone, who is very receptive to suggestions. I highly doubt you would get the same reception from Adobe.   

But I would love to see a qualifier for _1,000,000 times of a better investment_.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 15, 2004)

Ugh. I think Publisher is worse than Word, and it's support is severely limited these days from what I hear.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 15, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> Do *not* ever buy anything from OpenOSX. Never ever! Never ever ever! Just look around the web and see the comments of customers. Many have never received the product after paying, all get no support and emails go unanswered.
> 
> Besides, the stuff that they're selling is Abiword, Gnumeric and other programs that you can easily get for free. Just install them via fink whic is a very simple process.
> 
> Again, never ever buy anything from OpenOSX. I know of no one (apart from the developers themselves?) who has anything good to say abou them.



Point taken. But why would the magazine MacHome do a full review on their product if they were so unreliable? Maybe they didn't do their homework?


----------



## Viro (Nov 17, 2004)

Maybe they were paid? Who knows? 

 But in any case, I'll mention Scribus a program no one has mentioned yet. It's pretty much the open sourced alternative to QuarkXPress and InDesign. I don't do DTP, so I don't know how feature complete it is but the screenshots I've seen are very nice. You can install this via fink so if you haven't got fink set up, now's the time.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 18, 2004)

What's fink? (curious; never heard of it)


----------



## rubaiyat (Nov 19, 2004)

RacerX said:
			
		

> Create paid for itself in _demo mode_ in one job (web design project) three years ago.



Well in the last 20 years of doing DTP I have used Pagemaker, ReadySetGo, Quark XPress, MsPublisher, Ventura, FrameMaker and even RagTime, Word, AppleWorks and Nisus to lay out publications. So you can say there isn't much I haven't used to layout type.

Out of all of those I can safely say I found Create one of the most oddball and obtuse programs of the lot. It was slow, buggy and generally erratic and plain weird in it's functions. It lacks a pasteboard which means bleeds are impossible and the linking, styling and text flow defeated my best efforts at getting it do what I wanted. Maybe all these things have been fixed in later versions but I doubt it as it showed signs of being designed by a non-designer (an architect though he may have been).

Durbrow would probably be best off with an old 2nd hand version of Pagemaker or Quark XPress (assuming he is on Windows or can run Mac Classic). Simple enough whilst doing the essential layout tasks.

btw I doubt that Ragtime or any DTP program would not do the Croatian/Bosnian which has fairly standard Central European accented characters. It is just a matter of getting the appropriate fonts. The standard set of Windows fonts and OpenType have all the necessary characters inbuilt already. Only the older standard Mac Fonts lack the s, c and z with the hook over. Get EuroTimes and EuroHelvetica to do these in Classic.


----------



## RacerX (Nov 19, 2004)

rubaiyat said:
			
		

> Well in the last 20 years of doing DTP I have used Pagemaker, ReadySetGo, Quark XPress, MsPublisher, Ventura, FrameMaker and even RagTime, Word, AppleWorks and Nisus to lay out publications. So you can say there isn't much I haven't used to layout type.


I have (and still have systems that run) PageMaker, ReadySetGo, QuarkXPress, FrameMaker, Word, AppleWorks (& ClarisWorks) and Nisus Writer. And I spent most of last night working to fix two different documents, one in QuarkXPress and one in InDesign.

Given that, your experience is _breath taking_. ::sleepy::



> Out of all of those I can safely say I found Create one of the most oddball and obtuse programs of the lot. It was slow, buggy and generally erratic and plain weird in it's functions. It lacks a pasteboard which means bleeds are impossible and the linking, styling and text flow defeated my best efforts at getting it do what I wanted. Maybe all these things have been fixed in later versions but I doubt it as it showed signs of being designed by a non-designer (an architect though he may have been).



And your lack of experience here is equally _breath taking_. ::sleepy::

I use a copy of Create on both a Pentium/133 and PowerPC 604e/225 and have never found it slow. And I get calls daily from users of QuarkXPress and InDesign about how buggy and flakey those (Carbon) applications are. On the other hand my clients who use Create seem surprisingly problems free.

 Take it as you will. You are working hard to set up yourself as the benchmark of DTP, while _all_ I can offer is a suggestion for a trouble free application and my _mild_ DTP experience.

 Lets just agree to disagree... on that which you have no experience with.


----------



## rubaiyat (Nov 28, 2004)

Interesting. I raised only a few of the issues I encountered whilst attempting a project in Arabic, which no doubt you also have experience in. Other than dismissing them you did not address anything I said.

I also have extensive experience with people who *say* they do professional design work in all sorts of applications. I see the work and I see how they do it and, you are right, it is beyond discussing.

I take as my mark the example I was shown of a postscript drawing executed in Mass 11 on a VAX workstation. What the person who did it didn't say was it took 6 weeks of mind-numbingly tedious work arounds to do it. And at the end they really should have used a professional designer with a professional application.

Still I'll give you some latitude since I used Create a year ago. It may have changed but there is no real reason to keep testing apps on the off chance they may be eventually useful.


----------



## rubaiyat (Nov 28, 2004)

To be fair and also out of curiosity I went back to check out the latest version of Stone Create.

I found this comment in VersionTracker, which seems to agree with what I observed:



> Create is very rich and has great potential. It's wonderful being able to just put whatever you want, anywhere you want, on a multi-page document. But Create suffers from two big flaws:
> 
> Scores and scores of small bugs. None is an outright deal-breaker -- the app never crashes or corrupts! But there are so many old flaws which conspire to make the app feel unprofessional and clunky. It's like a car that gets you there but which grinds whenever you hit third gear.
> 
> ...



As I have said, I have used a lot of different software to do often quite complex and intricate work. They all have some strengths, which is why I choose them. Unfailingly though I have found they *all* have users who have such irrational attachments to their chosen software that it makes them blind to even its most obvious flaws.


----------



## chevy (Nov 28, 2004)

FrameMaker is probably the most reliable solution for large documents.


----------



## RacerX (Nov 28, 2004)

rubaiyat said:
			
		

> Interesting. I raised only a few of the issues I encountered whilst attempting a project in Arabic, which no doubt you also have experience in. Other than dismissing them you did not address anything I said.


You didn't give any specifics for me to address so I (of course) dismissed it.

I've watched people move from PageMaker to QuarkXPress, from QuarkXPress to InDesign, and most people like what they know. I, fortunately, know them all. I can work comfortably in any of them. I just spent the last three days working in QuarkXPress on a 70 page magazine which (hopefully) is going to press on Monday.

I had no problems working in that environment because I already know it.



> I also have extensive experience with people who say they do professional design work in all sorts of applications. I see the work and I see how they do it and, you are right, it is beyond discussing.


You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. I'm sure that you are able to do mildly competent work. You shouldn't let the fact that other designers are more versatile than you get you down.

Beating yourself up over this is not healthy. Just try to do better.



> I take as my mark the example I was shown of a postscript drawing executed in Mass 11 on a VAX workstation. What the person who did it didn't say was it took 6 weeks of mind-numbingly tedious work arounds to do it. And at the end they really should have used a professional designer with a professional application.


Which is fine. But are we talking about professional applications? I've seen ordinary people take 6 weeks to do with a professional app what a professional can do in minutes.

As your reading comprehension may not be up to the rest of ours (assuming you are not a native speaker) I suggest you reread the title of the thread. It sounds like you are suggesting that the starter of the thread should hire a _professional designer with a professional application_. I surely hope that you are not that far off base (though it sure looks that way).

For my part, I have never pushed Create (or any software for that matter) to professionals. Professionals are usually tied (irrationally) to some type of software. I've always found it is best to let them use what makes them happy.



> Still I'll give you some latitude since I used Create a year ago.


I don't have any need for your _latitude_ since you are speaking on a subject which you have no experience in.



> I found this comment in VersionTracker, which seems to agree with what I observed:


I'm sure I can find similar observations about any software, that doesn't change the fact that someone who uses the software has a better chance of knowing the software than a non-user.

But remember, we aren't talking professional here. That poor reading comprehension thing is again coming back to bite you... the title of this thread is:
*More than Word, less than InDesign*
 As Create is designed to do web design, illustration and page layout all for about $150, why would you expect it to work as good as a professional web design app like GoLive ($400) or a professional illustration app like Illustrator ($500) or a professional page layout app like InDesign ($700) or QuarkXPress ($945).

 Please read the title of the thread again. We need something that is more than Word (Create is definitely that) and less than InDesign (I've never argued otherwise), and as it happens cost less than both and provides an illustration and wed design tools on top of all that.

 Create is a good recommendation no matter how much a non-user like you foams at the mouth trying to say otherwise. 



> As I have said, I have used a lot of different software to do often quite complex and intricate work. They all have some strengths, which is why I choose them. Unfailingly though I have found they all have users who have such irrational attachments to their chosen software that it makes them blind to even its most obvious flaws.


Well, it is good that you know your short comings and are able to express them so openly in a forum setting. I just wish that you would keep those _irrational attachments_ of yours in check while posting.

But as you were kind enough to explain about your _irrational attachments_, I'll accept that as an apology. I can understand where your _irrational attachments_ clouded your view of the topic at hand, professionals like you often have blinded themselves to the rest of the world. The fact that you can't put yourself in the position of a non-professional is understandable... and the fact that you are able to express your faults so openly is even admirable.

Thank you, and please post again soon.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 28, 2004)

What I find interesting about this whole discussion is that we are touching on the real issue facing graphic designerseveryone thinks that by buying InDesign or any other word processing software that they are suddenly a designer. Employers now think there's a "design button" that makes design decisions (and expertise!) irrelevant.

To my knowledge, a program does not exist that has just enough features but doesn't cost a lot. You either get full features or minimal features because there's not much market for a middle ground (though this thread seems to prove that a bit false, demand-wise). Why not either go balls out and get the full software and commit to the design process, or just admit that you aren't a designer and let someone else format your project?

It would be like me, as a designer, saying I can program the back end of a website in MySQL, Perl or PHP just because I know how it should look in the end from a design standpoint. We can all agree I need training, knowledge and a little experience to pull off any amount of that kind of programming.

As a designer, I know that the software and tools are more and more accessible and that brings the average joe to the table and increases awareness; and I'm all for that. What bristles me a bit is when people want the tool to fit their need instead of using the tool for what it was made for. Do you need a hammer to put a thumb tack into a corkboard? Definitely not. You just use your thumb.

In short, I would buy the software that has the tools you need and is closest to the price you are looking for. From my 10 years of experience, Microsoft's Word is a bad word because it's deceptively easy to use on the front end, when you are creating your document, but it doesn't reveal its shortcomings until you start trying to print anything more than text with it. Printers hate it, and I have first hand experience with this fact. So why use a program that doesn't fulfill its primary function?! This is why I say ditch Word and go with something else like Quark or InDesign. Even though they cost more, they are the right tools for the job.

Though Quark has lost me BIG time after its failure to support its own product or to keep up with the times.


----------



## rubaiyat (Dec 6, 2004)

> You didn't give any specifics for me to address so I (of course) dismissed it.



Ignoring the chip-on-the-shoulder vitriol, I *did* make specific points about Create as did the user I quoted. My experience extends to areas you don't seem to know about and one of those is foreign language publishing.

The original poster was interested in publishing for Bosnia-Herzegovina readers (basically Croatian with some Turkish words). 

First I explained how to achieve the character set they required.

Second was how to publish their material with a less fancy and less expensive application, but more capable than Word. 

I have done all sorts of intricate and oddball work using all the apps I listed and more. I also do templates for clients in Word and whatever application they have as standard (most have no choice). The one thing that quickly becomes obvious is that whilst I can work around the short comings of these apps, because of considerable experience, the casual user quickly gets bogged down in irresolvable UI problems. They usually screw up templates very quickly or miss the whole point of how publications are constructed.

That is why I suggested getting an old, cheap version of PageMaker or Quark Xpress (the first is easier for non-pros). They do the basic layout work in a more or less straight forward way. Objects and type go where you put or drag them on the page They both have better graphics & type control than Word. There are also ample support options and books out there when they inevitably hit a snag.

You may like Create and get around its idiosyncracies but I wouldn't push it on someone with a need to get a publication out and I have already detailed some (but not by a long shot all of the many) reasons why not.


----------

