Forums | MacLife

Would be funny if those cards where laid out in InDesign...

Did they happen to mention the new "feature" to export SWF files? Because, that's what every printer & designer has been holding their breath to get y'know.

maxintosh wrote:

I have to say, indesign does have a somewhat steeper learning curve than quark. Still, it's figureoutable.

Yeah, I went through a period during which the phrase "what the f*ck were they thinking?" seldom left my mind, but eventually I mastered the, uh, quirks of InDesign.

It's like any other program..all the same features just a crappy interface. InDesign still has some output issues in the postscript eviroment but all in all...it's getting MUCH better.

I think Adobe was pretty smart essentially giving ID away...it got alot of people to switch!

chipper wrote:

i have to take issue with the idea that quark is easier to learn.

I think the reality for most people, and for ID entering the market, was that everyone used Quark. Yes, the edit original feature is great, but things such as hiding the option to exclude text from a wrap in the text box options are mind boggling at best - it took me forever to find that. Also, the ID2 user manual was full of bad info and bad links.

If you are learning one of the two from scratch, then yes, they will seem equal. If you are trying to sway legions of people who have been using QXp for years, as Adobe was, then it's best not to bury essential functions. Many basic ID functions seem to differ from QXp simply for the sake of differing.

Many people complain that a problem with Quark is that it is essentially the same as it was in vrs1. I don't see that being such a flaw - it worked, and worked well up to vrs4. Xpress didn't need to change so much as just add new usable features. I never had a problem using QXp - I switched to ID because I had to. I haven't used IDCS yet (nor QXp6), but ID2 has serious problems with printing spreads containing more than two pages - that totally negates ID's improved PDF production. Also, QXp handles colour swatches much better, especially creating mixed spot swatches and gradients. I much prefer QXp's means of manually controlling trapping.

As many comparison reviews of the two apps demonstrated way back when, for each feature one app has, it lacks something the other has.

beaverfever:

i didn't say that ID was categorically easier to learn than quark; it just was for me. i should have also mentioned that i had some experience with pagemaker when i picked up ID- but i also had 2-3 years of experience with quark. for me, i was up and running with ID (it was ver. 1.5) in no time. it just took some time to get used to the keyboard shortcuts.

if you do get a chance, check out IDCS- it's much improved over ID2. it doesn't, to my knowledge, have some of those quark features you say you like, but it is still quite a nice upgrade.

Last edited by chipper (2005-03-09 2:33 pm)

ultra wrote:

There is room for both of them...anybody remember Pagemaker.

Remember it? We still get a fair number of files supplied in it! Oh, joy.

And anybody basing an opinion of InDesign on Version 2 or earlier, throw away whatever you thought back then. It's bad ass now!

Oh, I would love to use InDesign CS! I'm stuck on version 2 because we don't get ID files here - I just use it for our own layout and design purposes - and the guy I work for refuses to pay for the upgrade.

Most of our stuff comes in as bitmaps, eps or cdr files.

Fun being on the printer end isn't it?

I got the hang of ID in about 40 minutes one day, and I couldn't believe how much friendlier the interface was. Quark made me want to rip my hair out, whereas ID is just laid out so much better. It's very intuitive, and I love it. Quark can suck it. Suck it long and suck it haarrrrddd, Trebek!

I agree. Quark is trying too hard. But then, who can blame them,? They shot themselves in the foot over a long period, by having such a customer hostile attitude, that they are scrambling to get back in the game. I personally think that it is good that they are fighting back. I probably use Quark and InDesign on an equal basis these days and I still find that each program has its strengths and weaknesses. I feel that it would be very very bad for the design and publishing industry if only one package were left in the market.

But, if Quark really are serious about bringing back customers (they've recently launched a free customer support line, for example), then they have to show that any changes they make are there for the long-term and not just until they have won back some market share. We shall see.