*** From the Archives ***

This article is from January 31, 2002, and is no longer current.

For Position Only: Switch to InDesign or Stick with QuarkXPress?

13

The time has come. We’ve all seen it coming, we’ve all been waiting. Now we all have to make the choice: What’ll it be, folks? InDesign 2.0 or QuarkXPress 5.0? Me, I’m choosing InDesign 2.0.

I learned desktop publishing in PageMaker, but no sooner did I get up to speed than the particular magazine where I worked switched to QuarkXPress. That was 1992. So for the last decade I, like the rest of the graphic arts industry, have been married (or shackled, depending on your point of view) to QuarkXPress. Oh, I tried InDesign 1.0, but I shelved it after the first few days, when I tried to print a document and got some obtuse PostScript error. An Adobe application that can’t print to a PostScript printer? Forget it.

Since then, however, I did upgrade to InDesign 1.5.2, which I’ve launched occasionally and played with, mostly out of curiosity and to become familiar with it, but for all practical purposes, QuarkXPress has remained my dominant page layout program. That is, until now.

My Own Private Workflow
Before I tell you why I’m switching, first let me say that I know it’s a lot easier for me to switch than for many of you. I work for myself, and my publishing needs are straightforward and few: type-heavy business collateral is most of what I lay out for print; otherwise, I do a lot of testing, experimenting, proofing, and copy-fitting in page layout applications, and in these circumstances, I work with files created in whatever application the designer uses; it’s not my choice.

But I’m also not a cog in a larger organization where I might be held back by corporate standards, limited by budget restrictions, pressured by production schedules, or worried about vendor relationships. All of these factors can make technological change tremendously challenging. But for those of you who, like me, work for yourselves and are in control of your own publishing destiny, we have the freedom to choose, right now, whether to upgrade from XPress 4.1 to 5.0, or switch to InDesign 2.0.

If you’re expecting me to list a bunch of features that compel me to suddenly launch InDesign instead of QuarkXPress when I need to lay out a page, I’m afraid I may disappoint. Sure, there are some features that are tremendously appealing — the type controls, for example, such as dynamic type reflow as you compose a paragraph, and the beautiful new table editor — but all of you XPress aficionados out there will quickly pick a fight and argue the merits of version 5.0’s new table features and other boons of that application. For me, the switch is less about features and more about simplifying my desktop (and my life) and choosing to go with an all-Adobe workflow.

As creativepro editor Pamela Pfiffner wrote last week the page layout battle is now about which company can win “the hearts and minds of creative professionals,” and Adobe has won mine. The fact is, I use almost all Adobe apps already, and the way that InDesign so seamlessly integrates with Photoshop, Illustrator, and Acrobat — importing and exporting files, maintaining editable transparency, standard color management settings and proofing controls — well, I’d be crazy not to switch to InDesign to leverage all of those capabilities.

Along those lines, I’m 100-percent certain that PDF is going to become an ever more popular format for final output because of its robust capabilities and reliable nature. And that being where the future is headed, I want to work within applications created by PDF’s developer and with PDF output in mind.

Resistance is Futile
I know, I know: Adobe is the Microsoft of the publishing world. It’s frightening to think that two companies make 95 percent of the software that I use. And the truth is, I use Microsoft products because I have to, not because I want to. I resisted Internet Explorer and Outlook Express as long as I possibly could, but I’ve come to face the hard fact that Explorer (5.0) is a better browser than Navigator (version 4.7– I downloaded and trashed 6.0 a while ago), and when I got Office 2001:Mac, I made the switch from Eudora to Entourage not because it was a whole lot better, but because it offered the convenience of integration (command shortcuts, preferences, and the fact that if you accidentally capitalize the first two letters of a word, Microsoft apps all automatically make the second letter lower case for you — I love that).

But unlike with Microsoft, I’m willing, almost eager, to go with all Adobe applications. Maybe I’m just getting too old to fight off the inevitable, but it just makes so much sense to streamline my design and production needs with applications that all come from the same vendor. And honestly, not only do I have respect for Adobe’s business practices, I also like its products. They’re not perfect — no software is — but they’re well engineered, they facilitate both creativity and production, and they give me what I need. Simple proof of that: InDesign 2.0 is Mac OS/X native; QuarkXPress 5.0 isn’t. What is Quark thinking?

I appreciate the fact that competition between Adobe and Quark has been good for the market and has driven innovation. But in some ways we’ve come full circle: QuarkXPress 5.0 and InDesign 2.0 have a lot in common, such as support for layers and improvements to table creation and editing, to long-document support, and to XML tagging.

Let’s face it, friends. Either product can do the job we need it to do; both companies are looking two, five, ten years down the line and working toward making our lives easier not just now, but in the future. Technology is about change, that’s a fact of life. And for me, the time is right to change from QuarkXPress to InDesign. I’m hopeful that it will be one of the least painful, most sensible changes I make in life, so I’m just gonna do it. I’ll let you know how it works out.

Read more by Anita Dennis.

  • anonymous says:

    Although I have been using Quark, I have seen enough demos and dabbled in InDesign to realise it’s superior abilities to Quark

    I especially support strongly the migration to OSX and Adobe is more likely to give full support than Quark.

    With the support of so many features between Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign 2.0 working in tandem, I truly can’t imagine why one won’t switch.

  • anonymous says:

    As I read the article, I felt as if I was writing it. I agree that an all Adobe workflow is going to be great, but I have not tried 2.0 yet, 1 and 1.5 were still to sluggish to entice me, but if they worked that out I see no reason not to switch. Hello Quark guys are you listening! Where’s the egg timer.

  • anonymous says:

    InDesign and Adobe offer much more than just new features. A company that obviously is interested in improving and updating it’s software is worth a lot to me too.

  • pixeltech says:

    I’m a freelancer too, and I work mostly with whatever formats the clients hand to me. I’ve also been learning InDesign since it was in its original beta, and since version 1.5.2, I’ve been doing all projects in it when I have the choice. My reasons are the same: I like an efficient workflow that works and creates beautiful pieces the way I want. Also, whenever I work in QuarkXPress now, I find myself frustrated again and again by its strange ways of working. I call it, “the Quark Gotcha Factor.” I’m grateful that Adobe has stuck to its guns and brought out a worthy and far superior product for page layout.

  • anonymous says:

    This article follows my thinking to a tee! Adobe actually seems to listen to customers and beta testers. Quark (and MS) couldn’t care less. I’m very pleased with ID 2.0, particularily with reference to the product compatibility with the rest of my apps, mostly Adobe. What saves me time, makes me money.

  • anonymous says:

    I was once a very enthusiastic supporter of Adobe products–when they made PostScript a public domain language, for instance. But for the last 2-3 years they have been more interested in getting their upgrade fees every 9-12 months than in making sure their upgrades are bug-free and useful to the enduser. These fees are expensive, usually around $200 and I, too, own that large suite of Adobe products. The other problem with requiring users to upgrade so frequently is the re-learning curve. I appreciate Quark’s commitment to a stable product that I can rely on and not have to re-purchase and re-learn every year.

  • anonymous says:

    I’ve owned and used Quark 4.0 ever since it’s release but have yet to find it a satisfying product. Whenever I’ve had the choice, I’d use Pagemaker 6.5 or finally InDesign 1.5.
    I worry about Adobe getting too big for their britches, like Microsoft has… but their products are generally high quality (except for maybe LiveMotion 1.0 or Adobe PressReady 1.0)… I don’t like getting burned for upgrades so often but it’s a toss up with that or investing in all the xtensions you’d need to have a good product with Quark.
    Just opened the box for InDesign 2.0 yesterday and it looks good from the get go… this was a no brainer

  • anonymous says:

    I enjoyed the articles lately comparing Quark to InDesign and was considering switching to InDesign. We are a small agency with 6 or 7 Quark licenses. Before testing InDesign, I asked my production manager to check with some of our printers and service bureaus to find out about their experience with it. Of the 5 she questioned, 2 definitely did not like InDesign and specifically mentioned font problems. One said they had to convert text to outlines before they could output with InDesign. Another didn’t mention any problems, but said their operators preferred Quark (this is to be expected, because they are more familar with it). The last two said the support it but rarely use it and haven’t used it enough to say if there are any problems with it. Even if our designers prefer InDesign, I won’t switch until I’m sure we are creating problems for ourselves with output.

  • anonymous says:

    I to started with Pagermaker (2.0), then switched the art department I was in to QuarkXpress and I’ve been on my own for the last several years and now use InDesign for everything and I’m converting the Quark docs as needed.

    I to like the intergration. And especially Mac OS X.

    Only complaint is the upgrade prices. I bought the Design package just middle of last year and upgraded to InDesign 2.0 from 1.52 and have to upgrade to Illustrator 10 and when Photoshop 7 comes out that will be almost half the prince I paid for the original packages. Ouch!!!

  • anonymous says:

    I’d just like to add that I’ve found the “vendor problem” to be, really, a non-issue.

    Here’s why: when I approach a vendor to print something for me, if they balk, I cheerfully say, “OK, I’ll bring my 300,000 catalog print job to someone else.” It’s amazing how quickly they suddenly decide that maybe they can afford to buy and learn InDesign after all.

    We’ve even had rush jobs where a vendor has to buy InDesign, install it, figure out how to use it, and start the presses from Friday afternoon to Monday morning.

    Even though they dug their heels in at first, the jobs sailed through, and the feedback we’ve gotten has always been, “Hey, that wasn’t so bad!”

    We’ve printed over 12 catalogs using InDesign and haven’t had a single problem (other than our own screw ups).

    The printing and prepress industry is so competitive that almost everyone out there would rather buy and learn InDesign than have you go to one of their competitors instead.

  • anonymous says:

    The “all Adobe” work-flow is what swayed you? Adobe had to publish a dozen page readme on how to make their new transparent features work. That isn’t progress. I just want to get work done. I say stick with Quark for releasing a solid upgrade. At least I don’t have to read a manual every time I print. Either program can produce essentially the same design, so why switch?

  • anonymous says:

    I’ve used XPress since 1995. When InDesign debuted, I bought it because even though it was a 1.0 version and probably had flaws, it had an introductory price, it would probably improve vastly, and Adobe upgrades are reasonably priced. Version 2.0 proved my case. Its on-screen performance beats Quark handily; it’s true WYSIWYG. Type handling is remarkable. And when PrintingForLess.com accepted InDesign files, that was all I needed to know. Goodbye, QuarkXPress — it’s been very good to know you, but you’ve been replaced on this Macintosh.

  • anonymous says:

    There is no point to this article. The writer is not knowledgeable enough to make any serious contribution, and her conclusion is based on a “blind faith” estimate of what Adobe will do for her in the future. It belongs in a religious site, not a professional design site.

  • >