Ok. This is the offcial Quark vs. InDesign thread.
I must admit, if my company were to say we are moving to InDesign tomorrow, I wouldn’t be terribly opposed to it.
Adobe is making huge strides and Quark continues to shoot themselves in the foot.
Quark vs. InDesign
  |
Posted: 18 August 2005 07:55 AM
|
 |
Posted: 12 September 2005 09:42 AM
I like the ability to change a text box without crashing, or adding a few pages at once, without crashing, or being able to save my file for the first time in preparation for a crash without crashing during the save, so I use InDesign. But I’m kinda picky like that. |
|
|
Posted: 12 September 2005 09:58 AM
At the risk of sounding like a Quark apologist (and I’m definitely not), I will point to this interesting article about the upcoming Quark 7. One can hope that Quark may have finally realized its severe case of rectal-cranial inversion and will be addressing real layout issues instead of glomming on useless features and treating their paying customers like NOLA evacuees by the Bush Administration. In the meantime, I’ve seen InDesign usage skyrocket at the many print shops I encounter, and every major design university in my city (NYC) is no offering classes in InDesign. |
 |
Posted: 12 September 2005 10:23 AM
I don’t wish to be a doom merchant but… Quark Have lost it. They’ve blown it. They sat too long in their ivory tower it’s over. Frankly, InDesign rules. Even version 1 was better than Quark seems to have been able to cobble in the last 3/4 versions. But this is what happens when you get fat and rich and stop paying Atention. Indesign is fast, adaptable and intuitive. The only problem I have with InDesign is that sickly pink butterfly icon they’ve used. But frankly I think this applies to all the iconography for CS2.... the orginial CS icons were better. |
 |
Posted: 12 September 2005 11:18 AM
I’ve been in the graphic design industry for say… 1 1/2 years. so yeah I’m a noob. but despite the greatness that seems to ooze from InDesign and though it may be a better tool, the fact of the matter remains that most of the people we do business with want quark files. once the printers decide to allow InDesign files then my company will allow us designers to use InDesign. though really I dont use either that much. I’m a photoshop/illustrator guy myself. (loving CS2 by the way) |
|
|
Posted: 12 September 2005 08:02 PM
Quark 7—if it lives up to that review—might be the one thing that finally gets me to embrace OSX. |
|
|
Posted: 12 September 2005 08:04 PM
BTW/ There is an entire website devoted to this topic. Link |
 |
Posted: 19 September 2005 01:44 PM
I’ve been doing design now for 6+ years, since finishing school. I was trained on Quack, I mean Quark. When I started my current job almost 3 years, the company had just made the switch to Indd. We just made the switch to CS2 a few+ months ago. I can’t be more clear when I say “I NEVER WANT TO USE QUARK AGAIN”. We sometimes have the need to go back to up-date old QXD files and it is a chore. Everything is easier in CS2. From type-setting to color management. The key commands and palettes are much more user friendly. The links, alignment, layers & colors palettes have features that QXD can only dream about. The stream-lined Adobe features, should in it self be enough for any designer to want to change, but if you need more: color accurate high quality screen display, near flawless screen re-draw, ability to place PSD documents into INDD (anybody who may change artwork several times before the finally version is approved will appreciate this) & transparencies. While QXD can do some of things, it doesn’t do them as well and it needs third party XTensions to do most of them. Everybody I know who has made the transition, has done so very quickly & swiftly and says they will never go back. While this is probably not the forum for this, for that I apologize… Snoogans aka jdmiller82 Do you realize the ironic implications of you bumper sticker signature? But since you bring it up… A. You’re implying that metaphysical belief can kill a theological doctrine. B. That the metaphysical ideology that is doing the “driving” is one that essentially means the effects of a person’s actions determine his destiny in his next incarnation will kill “dogma” which means a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof, which “karma” is. Here’s the kicker, you are effectively running yourself over indefinitely through-out time – ouch! Big Mac – thanks for the link |
|
|
Posted: 23 September 2005 11:27 PM
I can only wish that I had taken a different path in my schooling so that I could tell the difference between good\bad publishing applications. But I do raise a question; if Adobe kills off Quark (or out right buys them as they did Macromedia), will they not eventually suffer from the same fate as Querk? Lack of competition… Solomons, nice retort on the bumper sticker quote! |
 |
Posted: 24 September 2005 01:42 AM
Most print companies these days prefer PDFs to files for specific applications, so that makes it pretty irrelevant whether you use InDesign, Quack, PageMaker or almost anything else. The only distinction is often that they will not accept PDFs generated from Microsoft applications, although I’m not quite sure why (no doubt Microsoft has their own ideas about what a PDF “really” is like they do with every other format). |
 |
Posted: 24 September 2005 03:16 AM
You know, the funny thing is that people have said this for a decade. Ever since they failed to bring Quark 4 out in a timely manner we’ve all heard variations of the theme. If it was any other tech company they would be in the dusty bin of has beens. But the company for good or bad reasons have stuck around. If I gotta say, its a similiar story to Apple. Q7 could be their version of the iMac, which brings them back from the dead. As ppl in the biz always attest to - those dinosaurs the print shops still allow for an incredible large array of file formats - with .qxp files still fully acceptable. I am no Quark apologist. In fact, I went into interactive design fully believing that the tools (Quark) and production headaches of print design just wasn’t for me. But thats a whole ‘nother conversation. But you gotta be amazed that they’ve stuck around this long. |
|
|
Posted: 17 May 2006 11:48 PM
Not to revive a dead thread or anything, but to address Buzz. Most print shops will not take a PDF file made from Microsoft because it won’t color separate and it takes MUCH longer to correct the file for printing than to re-create it from scratch sorry again to revive a dead thread, but I’m a prepress-guru here to help the masses. oh, and “hi” to the board! |
|
|
Posted: 12 June 2007 01:00 PM
I’ve been using Quark since 1989 and to me there is no comparison with InDesign. InDesign excels in almost every way imaginable. End of story. Sure Quark still has a couple of features that InDesign does not but I can live without Kerning table edit, I think. |
Being a mac/adobe addict here, I have to say quark is clunky and antiquated when up against ID. When I have to go back and edit a quark file, I cringe. When I receive a quark file from a customer, I automatically tell them that anything I have to do to make the file work will be a minimum time charge of 1hr (that’s not so bad, any and all M$ files are 2!). IMHO ID just works....kinda like that other addiction of mine....
