# QuarkXPress or InDesign?



## CaptainQuark (Nov 2, 2006)

A certain person, who shall remain nameless (*cough*Natobasso*cough*) and ol' CQ have been battling for a while now over which is the better package &#8211; QuarkXPress or InDesign. Neither of us will budge. 

So what do other MacOSX users think?


----------



## ora (Nov 3, 2006)

Hi CQ,

I gotta go with InDesign. Quark had great days, but now I think a lot of the people who prefer it do so largely as they are familiar with it from past versions. I had to get into layout rapidly recently and tried both, and ID blew QXP out of the water for ease of use. Also, QXP is awesomely incompatible with anything else, which is deeply irritating.

The other big factor for me is that ID is part of CS/CS2. While there is a QXP/ID divide, Illustrator and Photoshop are far more dominant in their markets, and the really seamless integration in the CS and CS2 packages saves a lot of stress for InDesign users.


----------



## bbloke (Nov 3, 2006)

I'm certainly not exactly an expert in these matters, but I use DTP software from time to time in my line of work.  I tried a number of DTP program demos a few years ago and eventually settled on PageMaker for my needs.  Later, when it came time to upgrade, as PageMaker 6.5 was very buggy for me under Classic, I opted for InDesign 2.  My needs were not too demanding and InDesign had the integration with other Adobe apps and was easy enough to learn to use.

Again, design is not really my area, so I'm not an expert when it comes to DTP!


----------



## Qion (Nov 3, 2006)

I remember saying this in a past thread, but basically what I see is QXP incompatibility issues, old and unintuitive interface, and print problems. I vote InDesign for it's intuitive design, good look, and easy input and output of graphics and layouts.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Nov 3, 2006)

bbloke said:


> design is not really my area, so I'm not an expert when it comes to DTP!



Well then b*gger off and leave it to the experts, yer Philistine!


----------



## bbloke (Nov 3, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:


> Well then b*gger off and leave it to the experts, yer Philistine!


lol

Don't think I could *afford* to!  


(Oh where is that violin-playing smilie when you need it?)


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 3, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:


> A certain person, who shall remain nameless (*cough*Natobasso*cough*) and ol' CQ have been battling for a while now over which is the better package  QuarkXPress or InDesign. Neither of us will budge.
> 
> So what do other MacOSX users think?



Hee hee. It's a battle royale! Hey, I heard Quark named a new president and CEO: http://www.macnews.com/2006/11/01/quark-ceo/. Sweet! Not sure it's going to do any good, though. 

I do think it's necessary to keep both programs because we don't want InDesign to get complacent, now do we?


----------



## mdnky (Nov 3, 2006)

InDesign has been my choice since version 1.5 came out.  It does what I want reliably and is less of a hassle to use IMO.


----------



## esteban (Nov 8, 2006)

No matter how you slice it--and I can't stand Quark the company--QuarkXPress still seems to b the standard. I've had one client require I use InDy to do layout on a book so far, tho' I think my second is coming shortly.

The other thing is--right out of the box, now--InDesign's suppposed wonderful handling of type ... wasn't. The word spacing it assigns by default--in both paragraph and line-by-line settings--is more likely to result in word spaces that look like you could drive a truck thru it than with Quark's defaults.

Obviously, tou can fix this on the fly with tracking adjustments, or by changing the appropriate settings, but--as someone who works fairly regularly doing book design and page layout--it says something that a product it is relatively easier to use right out of the box.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 9, 2006)

It's the standard, with much less marketshare. Here's a great website comparing the two programs: http://www.quarkvsindesign.com

And an article explaining more about text options in ID (though with a silly tone that I find distracting): http://quarkvsindesign.com/articles...ripping-up-your-quarkxpress-to-indesign-game/


----------



## wicky (Nov 10, 2006)

I never thought I'd say this, because I've always disliked elements of Quark (such as, my pet hate, command-k to delete... rather than the delete key), but now I think it comes down to the type of designer you are. Different tools suit different people.

I've been using both for more time than I care to think about, and have favoured ID ever since I started using it with v1.5. For me there is no competition, but I'm very used to Photoshop and Illustrator, and design with layers, etc. The thing I love about ID is the fluidity of the design process.

Apart from the obvious (already knowing Quark inside out), other people that I have worked with are much more traditional in their approach, and simply aren't interested in what they see as ID's unneccessary "bells & whistles". I have worked with very good designers who ONLY use Quark (as in no other applications at all!).

I do quite a lot of freelance in and around London in very well established agencies, and have found that Quark is seen as a trusted work horse, whereas ID is still to earn its stripes. Many designers (and more importantly, art directors) appear to have tried ID in its early days, but were put off because it was too feature packed (slow) for the hardware it was being run on. 

Ironically, the only strength that Quark has over ID, a strength that ID will never be able to compete with, is that Quark is less sophisticated. It's a difficult fight for Quark to win; stop developing the product in the hope of retaining a percentage of designers, or try to take on the might of the Adobe integrated toolset.

I know who my money's on... I don't think either program is perfect, but I think ID's imperfections will be addressed much more quickly.


----------



## RacerX (Nov 11, 2006)

For the stuff that I do, I use Stone Design's Create. It effectively replaced both QuarkXPress (and PageMaker) and Illustrator on many of my systems.

Another reason I use it a lot is the fact that I have versions for OPENSTEP, Rhapsody and Mac OS X.


----------



## wicky (Nov 11, 2006)

Wow... that looks terrible! I didn't think software like that still existed.


----------



## rubaiyat (Nov 11, 2006)

RacerX said:


> For the stuff that I do, I use Stone Design's Create. It effectively replaced both QuarkXPress (and PageMaker) and Illustrator on many of my systems.



I haven't tried it again of late but when I did seriously try to do a project with it I found Create bizarrely awkward to use and buggy. It also seems to be designed by a non-designer with a terribly unattractive GUI.

I'd like to nominate Pages as a new but promising candidate for quality DTP. It has some missing features and a different way of working but has some features that also blow me away.

Even though I am a long standing expert Quark user who loved its directness, solidity and speed I have to concede it has had its day and doesn't play nice since they upgraded it to work with OSX.

I think InDesign is the queen of DTP now, despite flaws in some functions and I am still critical of many details in the way it works. I saw a demonstration of InDesign's object styling the other day and can't wait to try it out.


----------



## magilum (Nov 18, 2006)

A favorite moment of mine was having my old boss lecture me that a line drawing I did in Illustrator would have taken her "a few seconds" in Quark, then toward the end of the day to see her face glaze over as she realized she had to manually reposition a bunch of crop marks she had done (iitty bitty individual lines) in another Quark file.

I love to batch things to save time, but Quark always forced me to do a lot of things manually, needlessly. I still wake up in a cold sweat recalling all the PDF export glitches.

I'll refrain from voting since I have a lot more experience with Quark than ID, but I hope the latter is a lot better.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 18, 2006)

ID is a whole lot better. The PDFs I export from ID now are 1/5 the size of the Quark pdfs. And ID has auto crop marks if your doc is set to trim size. No more little lines...


----------



## Qion (Nov 18, 2006)

Wow! Publisher.

IT DOESN'T DO TRANSPARENCY!!!!!!! 

And I hate it. So much. I'd honestly rather take a bullet to my head than have it in my workflow again.


----------



## wicky (Nov 19, 2006)

The fact that it was ever there is slightly worrying.


----------



## fryke (Nov 19, 2006)

When I started using DTP apps in 1993 or 1994, I was looking at PageMaker, and I thought: This is somehow wrong. So I looked at XPress, and it was worse. Basically all my initial wishes, however, were later filled with InDesign.


----------



## Natobasso (Nov 20, 2006)

You mean PageWaster...


----------



## fryke (Nov 20, 2006)

hehe... Well. When you learned its tricks and learned to back things up, you could actually live with PageMaker, I'd say. Of course it always depends on what you have to accomplish.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Nov 20, 2006)

Natobasso said:


> You mean PageWaster...



ROFLMAO! At last we agree on something!  I used to use PageMaker, but when QXP came along, I saw PM for what it really was  a waste of hard disk space.


----------



## simbalala (Nov 20, 2006)

Natobasso said:


> You mean PageWaster...



The service bureau I used to use to get film output always called PageMaker PageShaker. Needless to say I was using Xpress.


----------



## Timotheos (Nov 30, 2006)

Heres a little bit from me representing the future designers of the south pacific 

I just finnished my 2nd year of Design School where, in one assignment we were introducted for the first time to Quark and ID, we were given both programs to choose from and our tutors could teach other either of them.

I dont know if its the fact that my generation was brought up with photoshop (well actually, If I had to, I would put it down to that) but every person in my class picked ID.

No one really even touched Quark right from the start.

Gotta tell you something about Quarks future.


----------



## esteban (Nov 30, 2006)

Okay, so all of you who use InDesign, what do you use it for? Same question for Quark users. I mean, have any of you used these programs for actual work that they get paid to do? I mean, I've only used In Design on one paid book in two or so years. I've used Quark on 13 books in that same time.


----------



## ora (Dec 1, 2006)

I was an ID user anyway, but that is what my organization uses, so I've used it the last 18 months to design a whole bunch of posters, a brochure, design and monthly layout on a publication etc etc etc.

I know old school designers are often Quark fans and remain with Quark but if you aren't specifically trained in layout etc and you need to do a bit of layout, i think organizations like ID as they are familiar with Adobe products. This is a symptom of the current tech aware generation, if you need design you often get a young guy (or girl) who understands illustrator etc, not someone with actual training in the concepts of design.


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2006)

I've been using InDesign (since version 1.0, actually) for three main purposes:

1.) Posters and ads. Backgrounds in Photoshop, some other elements in Photoshop as well, art in Illustrator, putting everything together and adding text in InDesign. Could be done in Illustrator as well, I guess.

2.) Brochures. Mainly based on CI of the company I've been working for. InDesign is just _great_ with text and interaction between vector art and text.

3.) Books. I've layouted (laid out?) three books in InDesign now, and it's been a great experience. ID has gotten the tools for it in version 2. I think I still had to do much indexing by hand in version 1.x.  The important part is: Block text simply looks gorgeous when done with Adobe's multiline-composer and optical margin alignment. And it's not just creative geeks (oh, this solves the riddle of whether I'm a creative head or a geek, then, eh?) who see the difference. It's clearly a much better tool for this.


----------



## esteban (Dec 1, 2006)

fryke said:


> ...Block text simply looks gorgeous when done with Adobe's multiline-composer and optical margin alignment....



Hmmm... That's what I keep hearing. But the one book I've done in InDy (2.0, tho' I now have CS2) I hated the word-spacing. I guess I haven't worked with it enough to know how to alter the defaults. It took me a while to find defaults in Quark that left me satisfied with word-spacing thruout a bookload of text. But out-of-the-box, I was disappointed with InDesign precisely because I heard the multiline-composer was revolutionary for the way it handles type.

As to Quark's clearly taking a backseat to InDY, even tho' I still use it, because (as a mercenary) it's simply what my clients requuire) I have two thoughts: 1) Don't let the door hit you in the ass, Quark (the company); and 2) it's mainly inertia that has all the newbies and schools going to InDy--that is, we all use Photoshop and Illy, so it's economical to buy the whole package and get into InDy, too.


----------



## esteban (Dec 1, 2006)

Oh, of course I didn't leave the word-spacing I hated alone. I went thru, line-by-line, till I was pleased with how it looked. If anyone has any suggestions for changing defaults to give more eye-pleasing word-spacing from the jump, I'd love to hear.


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2006)

If the multiline composer is turned on for your paragraph styles, I doubt going through your text line by line and adjusting each space between words is really fun. You should rather look at the paragraph style's setting etc.


----------



## wicky (Dec 1, 2006)

esteban said:


> Okay, so all of you who use InDesign, what do you use it for? Same question for Quark users. I mean, have any of you used these programs for actual work that they get paid to do? I mean, I've only used In Design on one paid book in two or so years. I've used Quark on 13 books in that same time.



I mostly work in branding & advertising, so don't do much book layout (unless you call catalogues books). I know earlier versions of ID had real problems with longer documents, and slowed down massively the more you put its huge (Quark killing) feature set into operation.

A good friend of mine is an Art Director at Penguin Publishing, and they have made the decision to move to ID after being Quark-ers forever. The same goes for many of the UK's big name publishers (both books & magazines) including MacMillan, Future and I believe Dorling Kindersley.

These are some of the largest publishers in the world, and as far as I can see, they simply wouldn't entertain a company level policy shift towards new software, unless it provided significant advantages. Whether it comes down to cost, feature set, future development potential, integration with other apps, or about a million other things, InDesign offers sooooooo much more.



> Oh, of course I didn't leave the word-spacing I hated alone. I went thru, line-by-line, till I was pleased with how it looked. If anyone has any suggestions for changing defaults to give more eye-pleasing word-spacing from the jump, I'd love to hear.



Esteban, both of these comments just sound like you don't know how to use ID, rather than it not being any good. Most people experience frustration with new apps that replace old favourites, but you should have the sense to see what's a short coming of the application and what isn't. 

ID is not perfect, but so far it's text handling has been pretty much universally applauded even by the harshest critics. if you think there's an issue with work spacing, customize it to your taste. If you work professionally in this industry, you'd probably benfit from a short course. I was led through the new features (and MUCH more importantly, workflow) of CS2 by a member of Adobe dev team... it made a massive difference to me.

... and BTW it's not inertia that has newbies and schools going to ID, it's that fact that at every level (whether CS2, education, stand alone, etc.) ID is far more cost effective. That's not the same thing as intertia.


----------



## esteban (Dec 2, 2006)

Didn't say I out-and-out_ hate_ InDy. Just that it posed an unexpected issue after hearing how wonderfully it handles type. As for inertia--inertia is best defined by the old saw: "A body at rest tends to stay at rest, and a body in motion tends to stay in motion." Right now, it seems to me bodies are in motion away from Quark, both the company and the software, and InDy gives many reasons to stay in motion away from Quark. I think that's inertia.


----------



## eric2006 (Dec 2, 2006)

I use InDesign - haven't had much experience with Quark..

Of course, I might switch to Publisher when the Mac version comes out -


----------



## Qion (Dec 2, 2006)

eric2006 said:


> Of course, I might switch to Publisher when the Mac version comes out -



Yes.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Dec 4, 2006)

So according to Ora's definition, I'm "old school".

I use QuarkXPress for everything except web stuff. When I say everything, I mean that 95% of the stuff I do is for print: mostly books, catalogues and large, high-quality brochures  adventure travel stuff Everest, jungles of S.E. Asia, that kind of thing.

Obviously I do my photo work in Photoshop, but I do line work in Macromedia Freehand.

Maybe "old school" could be interpreted as "old age". This old dog doesn't want to have to learn new tricks unless I _absolutely_ have to. If QXP died the death (which, of course, it may yet do) and InD was the only alernative, then I don't doubt that I would pick it up in no time, as easily as I made the jump from PageMaker to QXP way back when

But don't forget that Quark Inc came in for a lot of stick when the dominated the market and there were no real alternatives. How will it be when the Adobe megalith has absorbed everything?


----------



## Esquilinho (Dec 5, 2006)

I started my design job with Quark. I never in my life had had any kind of DTP or design training, but I was able to learn it simply by following the turorial book that came wit the software. I used it for about 2 years and then my company decided to change to ID - what a blessing! Finally I could do table the easy way!! 

I've been using ID for almost 3 years now and I still love it.

I do layout for books and book covers. In the last 4 years, I must have done some 40 books.


----------



## magilum (Dec 5, 2006)

If Adobe beats Quark for dominance over DTP, we might end up with a software publisher unresponsive to its customer base... oh wait. 

Actually, the Adobe monolith makes me uncomfortable. If it doesn't wake you up in cold sweats, consider that a bigger company could purchase Adobe. Blegh.

The only thing that has me cheering for ID is my contempt for the half-assed workarounds and bad habits imposed by Quark.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 6, 2006)

i too am becoming uncomfortable about Adobe.  in the last 4-5 years they've swallowed up all their competition.  all of it.  the only competition left is Apple (who aren't going to touch Creative Suite), and possibly Quark, but InDesign has seriuosly hampered them.

the last big stalwart was Macromedia, but now that's gone too.  Fireworks and Freehand are no more.  remember also that GoLive was a seperate company as well, for example.


----------



## fryke (Dec 6, 2006)

That's capitalism at work for you. Adobe sees how Microsoft tries to eat Acrobat for lunch and how Apple eats into Adobe's core markets with video and photo applications, so it _does_ have to defend itself. Macromedia was quite an obvious target, really. (And FreeHand was once Aldus', just like PageMaker, btw., so you see these things go waaaaay back.) But when I look at how the monolithically slow Quark has started to defend XPress' market share by beating Adobe at creating an UB of XPress, I think that this capitalistic system works quite well for the end user so far. If only there was _more_ competition, eh. Adobe sure takes its time to bring on CS 3. On the other hand: Users were complaining that CS 2 came too fast and that they rather would have seen CS 1 fixed more promptly instead. Now, of course, we're bitchin' about because we _know_ we won't see UB versions of CS 2 apps.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Dec 6, 2006)

So suddenly, from being an ol' stick-in-the-mud, I am now a defender of freedom of choice and of the underdog! ::ha::


----------



## fryke (Dec 6, 2006)

I wouldn't say XPress is the underdog already when compared to InDesign. In that specific market it's still the other way 'round. However, of course, Adobe is more than just ID (much more), whereas Quark probably lives and dies with XPress' success.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Dec 6, 2006)

Kick a man while he's down, why don't ya


----------



## Natobasso (Dec 6, 2006)

I'd like to say that the current situation is what Quark needs to pull itself up by its bootstraps, but they currently have a culture of complacency. But, it's just like Apple was before Steve Jobs came back.

Quark just needs a galvanizing personality to take them back to the top of the mountain.

All they need to do is create a great pdf exporter.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Dec 7, 2006)

esteban said:


> we all use Photoshop and Illy, so it's economical to buy the whole package and get into InDy, too.



Hmmm I seem to remember Microsoft getting into hot water about bundling IE with its operating systems. Maybe someone will object and force Adobe to sell 'em one by one rather than as a bundle.

Yeah, yeah, I know  it's _nothing like_ Microsoft and IE



Natobasso said:


> All they need to do is create a great pdf exporter.



Do you do your photo retouching in MS Word or your line art in iTunes? If you want proper PDFs, use Acrobat Distiller!


----------



## Natobasso (Dec 7, 2006)

CaptainQuark said:


> Do you do your photo retouching in MS Word or your line art in iTunes? If you want proper PDFs, use Acrobat Distiller!



Do you change your oil to start your car? Just export to PDF right from InDesign and skip Distiller altogether. I haven't used it in 2 years.


----------



## esteban (Dec 10, 2006)

Well, what about this? Is there some reason to save as a Quark file and then use Distiller to create a PDF from the Postscript file? That's how I've been directed to make PDFs by the book packagers for whom I've worked, as well as their printers. Is that the Stone Age way of doing it, or are there still reasons to go thru all the steps?
__________________
"The [publishing] business is a cruel and shallow money trench. A long  
plastic hallway where pimps and thieves run free and good men die  
like dogs. There is also a negative side."
--Hunter S Thompson


----------



## Natobasso (Dec 11, 2006)

It's very stone age at this point. Do they have you RIP to Acrobat 4 files? PDF/X-1a files? InDesign's pdf export to pdf/x-1a should satisfy nearly every printer out there.


----------



## esteban (Dec 11, 2006)

On the particular book I just finished laying out (and that gave me such trouble), the packager has me doing it the old way. I print Quark files to Postscript files, then open the Postscript files with Distiller 7 (using their printer's joboptions file), which distills PDF/X files.

It happens that it's not working.

I've a Compliance Report that lists a number of errors, a few of which I've gotten explanations for.There are duotones that have been a problem throughout this project. I did not create the duotones; the book's designer--don't ask--created them. They're apparently still a problem from what I was told by someone who took a look at the Compliance Report.

PDF/X would satisfy this printer. If it worked.


----------



## CaptainQuark (Dec 12, 2006)

You can't have duotones in a PDF/X1a file, just as you can't have spot colours. You will have to open them up in Photoshop and convert them to CMYK.


----------



## chevy (Jan 5, 2007)

I was a FrameMaker guy. But my business is special: I write 100 pages long datasheets, with lots of grawings, equations, tables, cross-references... and most documents are assembly of several chapters with different authors.


----------



## esteban (Jan 5, 2007)

You _were_ a FrameMaker guy? What did you use for your equations in FrameMaker?

I ask because I've done books with over 300 _heavy_ equations in them. I used the Mathable XTension from inside Quark 4.1. I also used MathType, a standalone, to import equations into PageMaker files--back, and up until 1999 or 2000 for a science journals publisher. Most recently I used MathType and imported into Quark and InDesign, tho' I may be doing something latr this year with InDesign and InMath.

What are you using now for equations?


----------



## chevy (Jan 6, 2007)

I was using the FrameMaker equation editor.

Now I use Microsoft equation editor or the equation editor of OpenOffice. Both are ok but not as well integrated into the system than the one of FrameMaker.

In the past I also used Latex for scientific papers. The equation editor of Latex is more difficult to learn, but it is the best for controlling the quality of the equation output.


----------



## mspain77 (Jan 27, 2007)

I think it's necessary to be proficient in both apps. Different printers utilize different apps., and sometimes (in the case of newspaper ads for clients escpecially), it's best to provide the proprietary native file so that the newsprinters can make edits for various runs and not bother you for every little thing.
I currently run Q6.5, Q7.1, and InDesign CS2. 
Q7 did a lot to improve, but I would still have to say that Adobe kicks it's butt.
InDesign gets my vote!


----------



## wicky (Jan 27, 2007)

True, we can't really get by without *all* of the current app's in real world situations, especially in the case of mag ad's & editorial. 

That said, I have found that where printers were very reluctant to embrace change a few years ago, many of them are willing to be re-educated these days in terms of new software. Perhaps it comes down to the fact that until relatively recently Quark had no serious competition, so printers were at liberty to dictate the file formats that they would except. 

With ID's increased popularity they probably can't afford to be so *traditional* in their approach... We have adopted a policy of dropping printers who won't work with our chosen tools. This, of course, doesn't really work with newspapers and the like.


----------

