Editor’s note: There is perhaps no one more knowledgeable about page-layout applications than David Blatner. Author of “Real World QuarkXPress,” long considered the definitive book on QuarkXPress, Blatner has lately turned his attention to Adobe InDesign. He co-authored “Real World Adobe InDesign 2” and, most recently, “InDesign for QuarkXPress Users.” He also speaks at conferences and user groups — including seminars sponsored by Adobe — on his assessment of the two programs. If you’ve been wanting to know what David Blatner thinks about QuarkXPress and InDesign, here’s your answer.
The question I hear most often these days is “Which is better: QuarkXPress 6 or InDesign 2?” Of course, while everyone wants a definitive answer, any honest reviewer must respond: “It depends.” It depends on who you are, what your workflow is, and what you need to accomplish in your work.
That said, I will make one (more or less) definitive statement: Comparing the two programs in a vacuum, all things being equal, it is quite clear that Adobe InDesign is the superior program. It incorporates superior technology, is written using a superior programming methodology, the features it has in common with XPress are implemented in a superior way, and while XPress has a few important features that InDesign does not, InDesign clearly has the superior feature set in toto.
However, that doesn’t mean you should immediately switch to InDesign. For the more complex answer, read on.
By the way, please note that I make no pretense that this article is The Definitive Comparison of these two programs. We could discuss ad nauseam details such as the relative merits of how QuarkXPress and InDesign each handle character styles or layers, but for this particular article, my goal is simply to provide an overview and share my opinions.
Expired Advantages
One of the best reasons to use XPress has always been its ability to run efficiently on a slow, RAM-deprived computer. As much as Apple and Microsoft would love us all to have the newest, fastest machines, much of the world relies on older systems. Unfortunately, XPress’s advantage expires with version 6, which requires a machine capable of running the very hefty Mac OS X or Windows 2000 or XP. (XPress 6 cannot run in Mac OS 9, though InDesign 2 works in either OS 9 or OS X.)
To be sure, many features in XPress still run faster than InDesign on any given computer — for instance, navigating from page to page or importing MS Word documents. However, some XPress features now run significantly more slowly than InDesign, such as exporting PDF files and formatting tables. More importantly, the fact that InDesign can build drop shadows and read transparency in Photoshop images (with or without a clipping path) means that designers spend much less time in Photoshop, which results in huge time savings overall.
In general, you’ll be more efficient in InDesign when creating design- and type-rich documents and more efficient in XPress when you need to knock out basic documents with a lot of pages.
Another advantage QuarkXPress has traditionally held over InDesign was its firm infrastructure: the many XTensions available, the AppleScripts people use, and the printers and service bureaus that want native XPress files. Unfortunately, no XTensions that worked with earlier versions of XPress work with version 6, and some XTension developers — including Extensis — appear reluctant to update their products so that they will work with the new version. While some AppleScripts from earlier versions of XPress still work, a large number will have to be edited or rewritten. And many output providers today prefer to receive PDF files rather than native XPress files.
Given that quite a few XTension developers are now also creating InDesign plug-ins, InDesign is more scriptable than XPress, and it’s much faster to export PDF from InDesign, XPress’s infrastructure advantage also seems to be fading.
What’s Missing from InDesign
Of course, InDesign 2 still does not have some features that XPress 6 does. Here’s a quick list of features XPress 6 users take for granted, but which are missing in Adobe InDesign:
- Multi-ink colors (color swatches that combine spot colors);
- Automatically add pages when typing or editing text;
- Drag-and-drop text;
- Custom kerning pairs;
- Text wrap for objects on master pages;
- Auto Save and Auto Backup;
- Save H&J styles (InDesign can include hyphenation and justification specs in a paragraph style, but there’s no way to create an H&J style that can be used in multiple paragraph styles);
- Layout spaces (multiple documents in a single file; new in XPress 6);
- Ability to undo mulitple steps at one time (XPress 6 has an Undo and Redo popup menu so you can undo a bunch of stuff all at once rather than one step at a time);
- Custom Lines and Stripes (InDesign has basic dashes, but nothing as clever as the Lines and Stripes feature in XPress; plus, InDesign doesn’t let you specify a Gap color in lines);
- Web features (InDesign can export HTML, but it’s nowhere near as robust as the rollovers, cascading menus, and export HTML features in XPress 6).
What’s Missing from XPress
Even with the holes listed above, InDesign is still the more feature-rich program. Here are a few of the life-changing features that give InDesign the advantage over XPress:
- Drop shadows, feathering, and opacity (transparency) of both native and imported objects;
- Import native .psd and .ai files, with full alpha-channel transparency (which means clipping paths are often unnecessary);
- Imports MS Excel files and MS Word tables as real tables;
- Crash protection (restores documents that were open when you crashed, even those that have not yet been saved);
- Support for special OpenType characters and features (automatic fractions, swashes, and so on);
- Ability to preview overprinting colors on screen and on composite color printers;
- Display PostScript functionality, so type doesn’t get chopped and you can trust what you see on screen (and even on non-PostScript printers);
- Multiple windows of same document;
- Base one master page on another (hierarchical masters);
- Built-in preflighting before printing;
- Page sizes up to 18-feet square (XPress’ limit is four feet);
- Scale tool and Scale dialog box (which works for both individual objects or groups of objects);
- Scriptable on Windows and Macintosh (XPress is only AppleScriptable);
- Font-styling integrity (won’t allow Bold or Italic styles if the true font doesn’t exist);
- Guides are objects (select multiple guides, place guides with numerical precision, change color of guides, copy and paste guides, guides in libraries, guides on layers, and so on);
- Comes with dictionaries for 12 languages, and because it uses Unicode, can even open files created with the Japanese or Middle-Eastern versions of InDesign;
- Paragraph composer, hanging punctuation, and optical kerning provide quality typesetting with much less work.
QuarkXPress 6 for the Macintosh has also lost a few advantages that Mac OS 9 provided. For example, InDesign has an “Edit Original” feature that opens an image or text file in the original program (Photoshop, Illustrator, Word, or whatever) and lets you edit it. XPress had a similar feature based on the Publish and Subscribe feature in OS 9. However, because that feature is no longer in OS X, XPress no longer has this ability.
Similarly, you can’t choose a printer (if you have more than one device) from QuarkXPress’s Print dialog box anymore, while you could in earlier operating systems. Instead, you have to open the printer driver’s dialog box and do it there. In contrast, InDesign gives you almost all the control you need from its own Print dialog box, including changing printers, writing PostScript to disk, and so on.
This article was last modified on January 11, 2022
This article was first published on July 22, 2003
Commenting is easier and faster when you're logged in!
Leave a Reply
Since 1992 I have been a QuarkXpress power user. Over the years I’ve tried InDesign 1.0, then 1.5, and then 2.0. It’s a good program that seems to get better with each release. But I kept using Xpress everyday for all my projects. I’m extremely comfortable with it, it’s reliable, and dependable. Unfortunately it was the only app that was keeping me from being 100% Mac OSX. I hated launching Classic just for it. I was desperately waiting for Quark to come into the 21st century. Then 6.0 was released. I was excited at first but then I began having doubts. I decided to learn all I could about the release before I blindly jumped into it. I made that mistake moving from 3.3 to 4.0. (which had so many bugs until 4.1 was released). And 5.0 was a waste of money (web tools? give me a break). So I did a ton of research, talked to lots of people, and read hundreds of comments, articles, and reviews on the Internet. I found out that other than being Mac OSX native there wasn’t a whole lot of improvement there. But I could’ve overlooked that. I could even forgive Quark’s arrogant attitude, bad service, and their pricey upgrades. However, the thing that really ticked me off is this software activation procedure that forces us to use the program on only one computer-period! Is that the thanks we get for supporting them all these years? We can’t even put a copy on our home computer or notebook without paying for additional licenses! Now after reading this “dead on” advice from David Blatner, it only solidifies my decision. I’m afraid after nearly 14 years of loyalty, there will be no upgrade for me. I’ve been desperately waiting for 6.0, hoping against all odds that it would be a killer app…but it didn’t come through. The contest is over. I’m making the switch to InDesign–and I don’t think I will be looking back.