| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Designers' Corner > Topic: Quark vs. InDesign debate |
Topic: Quark vs. InDesign debate
| Author | Message |
| cabaraba | Posted – 11/19/2007 5:35:03 PM | show profile I have always been a supporter of InDesign, especially since it runs incredibly smoothly with Photoshop and Illustrator. (hence Creative Suite!) It just feels like home. I am starting a new job where they have Quark. (sigh) I serioulsy feel like I'm regressing. Not only are the short cuts different, but it crashes alot and I am not too keen on the trouble shooting...especially when weekly deadlines are involved! They are going to "upgrade" to Quark 7, however I almost feel like suggesting we just get CS2 or 3. What does everyone use and why? It is comfort-based? Or is the industry standard simply Quark or InDesign? |
| AWC | Posted – 11/19/2007 5:51:49 PM | show profile Most designers I know have made the switch to InDesign -- I can only think of a few places still using Quark as their primary layout program, and even they realize that Quark is more or less over. I was invited to a presentation here in NYC a while back given by Quark to present their latest version to designers. Basically, it mimicked the functions of InDesign, while offerring nothing new. At one point in the presentation a designer asked the Quark rep to give a compelling reason for InDesign users to switch back to Quark -- and he didn't have an answer for him. I think that pretty much sums it up. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 11/19/2007 8:16:27 PM | show profile Companies stick to Quark because they don't want to retrain for InDesign. And Quark isn't bad. Even the company isn't bad anymore, though nobody is sticking around to see how much they've changed. If your computer is crashing a lot it might be a hardware or configuration problem. Quark is a pretty stable product. On the other hand, from a financial standpoint it doesn't seem to make sense to stay with Quark. Adobe pretty much has the professional graphics market locked. And most studios are already buying the suite, at least pieces of it. There's no substitute for Photoshop or Illustrator. Quark should have been nicer to its customers from the start. I won't weep when they go. |
| cabaraba | Posted – 11/20/2007 10:32:09 AM | show profile I guess my new employer's theory is "if the wheel isn't broken, why fix it?" All the style sheets are ready, templates, etc. I do however see the random situations where Quark chokes. I think I'm going to go with the flow for now, and let time decide if I can do the converting from Quark to InDesign, as I get more familiar with the work. |
| PluckyPane | Posted – 11/20/2007 10:46:35 AM | show profile | email poster I agree with the other posters. We use Quark at our company simply because the company president is too cheap to upgrade. Heck, we're using an older version of Quark only because he won't bite the bullet and buy the latest and greatest. He's of the school that you buy software once and it's good forever. While networking with a lot of other small publishers, I noticed the same trend. Most larger printing houses prefer InDesign but can work with both, especially if you do a lot of the prepress in house (which is what we do...it's cheaper). |
| nandy | Posted – 11/20/2007 1:15:32 PM | show profile I'm not indifferent to the synchronicity between the Creative Suite programs, but I've been working in Quark for a long time and I work very quickly and efficiently in it, even going back and forth to PhotoShop or Illustrator for little fixes. I've found 6.5 to be relatively bug-free. It hasn't caused any crashes that I can remember in months. I have InDesign on my work and home computers, so when and if the changeover is made at my employer I'll be able to retrain for it and practice at home. But to get through the fast-paced work I have on my desk right now, I'll stick with the program I know. |
| anonymousdesigner | Posted – 11/21/2007 2:45:46 AM | show profile I purchased InDesign for my home studio about 4 years ago and haven't looked back. The integration with Photoshop and Illustrator is seamless, having the desktop looking like Photoshop and Illustrator's has made it easier when going back and forth between programs and InDesign will open Quark files. Given the choice, I'd definitely go with InDesign. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 11/21/2007 3:57:15 AM | show profile I always wondered why Quark and Macromedia never teamed up. That would have been a competitive suite that could have kept Quark in the game. Quark, Freehand, Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver. |
| ArtDir | Posted – 11/28/2007 9:21:43 AM | show profile I didn't know there still was a debate Like most designers I started in Quark but switched to ID2.0 once OS X starting coming bundled with new Macs. Quark missed the OS X boat back then and never really caught up. The features of ID kept getting added and the software made leaps and bounds while Quark tried to just keep up. Didn't it take Quark something like a year and a half to release an update that would work with OS X? Do any of you remember the pre-OS X days? Good god! Since that time I have moved three companies from Quark to InDesign. Thankfully it is a pretty easy argument to win due to the price savings you get from the Creative Suite bundles. So talk to your boss and have him (her) do the math... or read this forum! Good luck! |
| ConfidentDesigner | Posted – 11/28/2007 12:56:40 PM | show profile InDesign, InDesign, InDesign!!! |
| cabaraba | Posted – 11/30/2007 4:12:07 PM | show profile Ok! You've got me all pumped up now. I will under-take the task of converting Quark to InD once I settle into the new job. Goodbye to pdf-ing via post-script dropped into distiller! |
| anonymousdesigner | Posted – 11/30/2007 6:42:59 PM | show profile YES! another convert! Here's to a swift and smooth transition! |
| FreeLucy | Posted – 11/30/2007 7:24:34 PM | show profile yes! InDesign |
| Letterbox | Posted – 11/30/2007 8:36:20 PM | show profile Maybe we should start a betting pool. When is Quark going to croak? Anybody know what their current marketshare is? |
| mr pre-press | Posted – 12/4/2007 12:49:58 AM | show profile | email poster QXP & IDCS From a freelancer's perspective?I learned on Quark 16 yrs ago. I've been working a lot with IDCS in its various iterations since they left trainer-wheel PageMaker land. QXP has the benefit of better key-commands than IDCS?by virtue of being first and locking them in as intellectual property. IDCS is more a designer "menu-puller" interface. Yes, you can hot-rod the menus w/ QXP commands, but you are again lost when you find yourself at another machine. IDCS has the home-brewed Acrobat Distiller engines?big snaps up for that. QXP had the crappiest Distiller driver, and the pdfs it makes in QXP7 are still 2x the size of ones generated thru Distiller. The lo-rez preview in Quark was unpardonable. Thats why a lot of people who should know better did ads in Illustrator. Yes, and don't get me started on Freehand, loathed by service bureaus the world over. |
| Letterbox | Posted – 12/4/2007 10:18:47 PM | show profile Just for the record, I've used Freehand since it was owned by Aldus. I still have and use MX. I never had problems with exported files at service bureaus. All my seps came out fine. I think problems stem more from improper usage. Like the default setting for pathed type. It automatically KOs. So if you risked using process colored type, that could get pretty ugly on a busy background. |
