Quark vs indesign

[newbian]

Our printers have told us that dont bother with indesign because its not out in the market enough. This boggles my mind... correct me if im wrong... if Indesign is a simalar program quark but deals with vector images why is the industry so hesitant to switch. I use quark alot and I hate it... mainly cause everytime I need to make changes to my vector images I have to go through to many programs.
Is it just because the industry is flooded with old school quark users who are to lazy to switch? or am I not seeing something? Would a program like this solve the problems of multitasking from various programs at once?
Now I would use pagemaker aswell but its not the greatest program and I find it very unstable... not to mention most printers in the area dont like it.

Im fairly new to this game so let me know if there is something im missing.

any thoughts?

 

[blueark]

Quark has a huge installed user base, and despite it's shortcomings, in general it is a very reliable platform. Many professionals would like to make the switch, but can't afford to take the chance. Imagine devoting weeks to an InDesign project only to find that your printer can't handle the file?

You have to keep in mind that although InDesign has some amazing features, not all RIPs can handle them flawlessly. It does have superior PDF export features, though, so you should ask your printers if they can output from PDF. If they can, that might be the solution for you, although creating PDFs correctly is another issue (many people mess up the resolution, the bleed, the compression, the color mode... the list goes on, so be careful).

 

[newbian]

I see...

But what major print house cant deal with a PDF... if they cant then I would think they are losing a lot of business. You make a good point, that all the old school Quark users are afraid to take the chance. Quark has flooded the market since 1981 so I agree that they have a strong foothold... but since adobe has targeted most graphic schools with having them put it in the curiculem I guess only time will tell... its time for the old schoolers to retire. No body likes change... your in the wrong industry if you dont upgrade yourself.
Excuse me while I vent.
I was taught Quark in school and have had great difficulty with it ever since. I actually use the program on a daily basis and Have never had an opportunity to try something similar or better.
I have never tried Indesign but Im going to try it out and see how it compares. From what I am told it would increase our productivity by large... since we are not jumping in and out of other programs (plus saving large $). What chance will I be taking... if the program can output PDF and all printers accept PDF... I dont see the problem.

 

[blueark]

Usually, PDFs don't cause any problems. However, many of InDesign's newer features depend on more recent additions to the standard, particularly with transparency effects.

If you think of your page as being made up of simple objects; some text, an imported photo, and some basic solid vector shapes. Every RIP I've seen can handle simple files like that, and up to a few years ago, Adobe Illustrator couldn't produce much more than that. With AI 5, they introduced gradients as an alternative to solid fills, and designers loved it. However, when they brought their files to their printer, the RIPs at the time constantly crashed. In time, those problems got sorted, but it didn't happen overnight.

That's a little bit like what's happening now. Transparency effects are amazing, and InDesign 2 is really raising the standard. However, you have to be careful about the PDFs you produce. If you accept the default settings, it produces PDFs that interpret transparency correctly, but will probably crash many RIPs. If you save as an earlier version of PDF, it may take a bit of trial and error to get the result you want, but at least the file will be more compatible. In other words, not all PDFs are equal.

I guess one of the reasons InDesign has been slow to take Quark's crown is that Quark files are relatively simple, and therefore trouble free. I know it sounds boring, but it does count for a lot, especially with impossible deadlines looming. However, I do hope InDesign catches up soon. Even if it doesn't take over from Quark, at least it might push them into listening to their users needs!

 

[jimoblak]

I found an interesting comparison article at

http://www.printondemand.com/2003-01-07.1042007259.html

The article is the best one that I have seen regarding this topic. InDesign only seems to be problematic if one does not have a computer with enough power or a contemporary RIP.

 

[RRx3]

I feel much the same way as newbian. I have used Pagemaker for a local newsletter, but now Ihave been asked to produce an International Club magazine. The printers prefer I use Quark so we are trying Quark 5 on the PC platform. The cost of this software is amazing compared to Indesign and Pagemaker. I also notice that 'add-ins' can be expensive, when some of the other programs come with these filters and effects as standard. I don't need to justify the cost, but believe it would be unjust of me not to bring it to my committees attention. Are we really doing the sensible thing with going to Quark?

 

[jimoblak]

Quark on the PC is a little foolish since the majority of the third party XTensions are only available for the Mac.

If your printer does not use InDesign, have them download a working demo. Adobe may still be offering the demo on a free CD. Once you try InDesign, you forget about Quark.

The only reason you might want Quark is if you have an existing library of Quark documents that you would not trust to conversion in PageMaker or InDesign. Since you seem to be starting from scratch, InDesign may be the best choice.

If not yet, printers will soon come around to InDesign.

 

[tjensen0128]

I know that I am coming into this conversation late, but I just joined this forum.

I have been a Quark user since 1992. I started with Mac's and when I moved to my current position I was forced to use a PC. In my first year here I had to use PageMaker. I was not then and am still not fond of PageMaker. To me, PageMaker makes you go through too many doors to do the same thing Quark will do with a quick key. The only thing I think PageMaker has done better than Quark was it collected fonts. So when InDesign first came out and was touted as the "Quark Killer." I convinced my boss to let me purchase a copy. I hated it. It was confusing, very hard to move around in, hard to find what you wanted, etc. After trying to use it for 4 months I went happily back to PageMaker because it was so much easier to use. I was finally able to convince my boss to let me buy Quark 4.1 for Windows. I have been happy as a lark ever since. I am now trying to get him to let me upgrade to 5.0!!!