Upgraders and Switchers
Now we turn to the all-important question: Are the improvements and features that Quark added to its new version compelling enough to encourage version-4 and version-5 users to upgrade to XPress 6? Are they significant enough that they would cause an InDesign user to switch back to XPress? Or will XPress users who are moving to a new operating system (Mac OS X) opt instead to change to another layout application — InDesign — as well?
Upgrading from XPress 4 or 5. There’s no doubt that XPress 6 brings with it features that XPress users have wanted for a long time. The addition of multiple undos, full-resolution previews and the direct export of PDF are important additions that were badly needed. Its OS X support works quite well. Its new multi-layout and text synchronicity features can be helpful for many people, even if they are somewhat poorly thought out. The additions to tables and layers are welcome incremental improvements. And, for the few who use them, the new Web and XML features are welcome.
However, Quark has much work to do to catch up with InDesign 2, much less deal with the 3.0 version that’s waiting in the wings. The programmers need to add support for transparency, better typography and OpenType fonts. They need to upgrade their printing interface and enhance their PDF-export features. And they still fall behind in many areas of layout, tables and graphic handling.
As we note above, Quark has substantially upped the ante in terms of system requirements for its new version. To make the leap to XPress 6, users need considerably more muscle-power in their computers. This is largely the result of the shift to the new operating systems, Mac OS X and Windows XP, which work best with faster processors and lots of memory. For Quark’s Macintosh users, there won’t be a choice; they will have to make the jump if they are to stay in business, because no new computers will boot Mac OS 9, and no new application versions will be available for it. The question is when to make the move.
Quark has added to the pressure with its decision about saving backward only to XPress 5. Many workgroups will therefore have to make the transition all at once, rather than piecemeal. (It was very common when XPress 4 and 5 were introduced to save files back to the previous version to work with colleagues or service providers who hadn’t moved to the new version.)
Another deciding issue is XTensions. Many XPress workflows rely heavily on the hundreds of third-party XTensions that have enhanced the product for particular purposes. Because moving to Mac OS X and XPress 6 will break every old XTension, some users will have to wait until their XTension developers write new code. But it’s by no means certain that all XTensions will be upgraded; some developers (Extensis, for example) haven’t announced whether they will offer newer versions of their products.
For most people who are committed to an XPress workflow — either because they genuinely prefer its interface and methods or because they work with vendors or colleagues who require it — we think upgrading to XPress 6 is a no-brainer, provided their workstations can meet the significantly steeper performance requirements and their budgets can handle the higher price. The only question is when. In the past, Quark has had to issue several updates as it ironed out the bugs in new versions, and we suspect that XPress 6 still has some major ones lurking below the surface. Compounding the users’ caution will be corporate conservatism about spending money for new hardware and software. Thus, we think most XPress users will face an awkward two- version environment for a while until everything gets upgraded.
Switching from InDesign to XPress. We foresee very few users who, having made the move to InDesign 2, will now change back to XPress 6. InDesign 2 matches or exceeds XPress in too many performance areas, including those where it lagged in the past.
Switching from XPress to InDesign. We suspect that many designers who view XPress 6’s feature set will be disappointed. Most honest evaluations of the two products show InDesign to have overall superior features, even although XPress still excels in some areas. What keeps many people using XPress is not that it’s a better product, but rather that most people are inherently resistant to change: They are reluctant to break their workflow or invest in training as long as what they have now works.
However, as we point out, the landscape has changed, and newer operating systems are here to stay. At some point, everyone who is doing layout will have to upgrade, which will require training for the new OS, the new versions of office-productivity tools and, of course, the necessary new layout applications. At this, many users may also welcome a move to InDesign.
Blatner likes to point out (and we agree) that what will build momentum for InDesign won’t be that everyone will switch to InDesign. Rather, it’s that more people will add InDesign to their repertoire. We remember that when XPress began to overcome PageMaker in the early ’90s, many of us who switched to XPress didn’t throw away our copy of PageMaker. We kept copies of both applications because we often had to go back to rework old files. (In fact, both David and I still keep a copy of PageMaker for that very reason.)
Conclusion
The next year or two promises to be somewhat chaotic in the layout arena. On the Macintosh platform, the move to OS X will be painful for some users, but it will be easier for those who have planned ahead and have been working with it already. We believe that most users will transition to newer versions of both XPress 6 and a forthcoming InDesign version by the end of 2004, and Adobe will gradually increase its share of the page-layout market.
The best thing to come out of this chaos is the arrival again of healthy competition. During the mid-’90s when Quark ruled the page-layout realm, Quark could decide how fast change came. We awaited anxiously each slow, incremental change in XPress. Now with the arrival of a real competitor to the throne, the pace of change has quickened. This is a good thing, for it will help us to meet the new needs of a new millennium where cross-media is the new byword — Web, XML, and PDF — and to add page-layout enhancements that we have dreamed of for a long time.
Steve Werner has been a trainer, consultant and author in the graphic arts industry for over 20 years. He is coauthor (with David Blatner and Christopher Smith) of “InDesign for Quark XPress Users” (Peachpit Press).
© 2003 by Seybold Publications
All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without written permission is strictly prohibited.
This article was last modified on January 11, 2022
This article was first published on July 29, 2003
Commenting is easier and faster when you're logged in!
