Quark Forums

I work for a catalog company that is currently using Quark 7.3 to compile our catalog pages. We have absolutely no problems in Quark and our workflow is smooth. We are being told by others in the catalog industry that we should be switching to Indesign. We are all very experienced Quark users and even though I have dabbled in Indesign I would prefer to stick to Quark. I have the job of deciding for the company whether we should be switching or not. The argument that I am hearing is that we will have to switch eventually as Indesign is going to beat out Quark. I would prefer to update to Quark 8, but the forums seem to be full of problems. What would you do??????? I would love to hear from anyone that has thoughts on this. Thanks Caroleday

Hi, If you look into any software forum around the world, you get a wrong picture. Try to look into the Indesign Forum. You woudn't believe that this software ist running reliable. Also look in the Illustrator or Photoshop forum. http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.ee6b330/ I know different companies who stay with Quark and others who swiched previously to Indesign. Both are happy but both have problems as well. Ask editorial offices who swiched to ID. They all curse ID because it works not like Quark. It is not Quark. In reality it is an modified PageMaker with a lot of Illustrator components. I learned Pagemaker in the eighties and i can understand the concept of ID. ID has more features but you don't need them often. The advantage has Quark because it has an streamlined interface, with the focus at work. The budget should be also considerated. If you buy a Creative Suite, you get ID nearly for free. But now Adobe starts to release more and more expensive upgrades. To keep an Creative Suite up to date, coud be very expensive in the future. On the other side you need Photoshop or Illustrator. But they are available as standalone packages. For my own design bureau i decided to stay for the main production with Quark 8. We use Indesign for evaluating and changing files from clients. We do a lot of catalogues (100 pages up) and backward compatibility is neccessary. No client would pay us for rebuilding thousands of pages in Indesign. There are conversion plug-ins available but you have to carefully validate the files which is time consuming because the conversion is not as precise as it should be. I keep up with Quark. In the last 20 years i have seen a lot of software companies leaving the market. So i don't worry. Regards…

This has been an oft discussed theme here on the Sofa. Just do a search for "Indesign" and you will see what I mean (although most of the older threads seem to have been pruned).

In any case, from a purely professional sense, the collective opinion seems to be "use the tool that is appropriate for the job." If that applys to you in regards to ID, then go buy ID. If your printers are having zero problems taking your XPress files (or PDFs) then why switch based solely on the statement that Quark is going to "lose" a race. It hasn't happened yet and they don't know what will happen. Furthermore, let's assume that to be the case for the moment, so this happens. What? You can't then go out and buy ID? Someone locked away all the copys and nobody is selling?

It's a stupid argument. As to upgrading to XPress 8.x, only you can decide that. However, having been around these forums since early 2004 and way back in 2000, 2001 in the old, old forums I can confidently say that the issues being discussed here about XPress 8.x seem to be considerably minor when compared to the volume of subject discussed regarding XPress 6.x and 7.x. Not to minimize those who are having issues with XPress 8.x, but nothing I have seen so far seems to be completely stopping anyone from meeting a deadline.

My two cents anyway. I'd discuss more about what I hate about ID (because I hate it), but it's not pertinent to what you are doing and nothwithstanding my prejudice against the program, it works. 

Here is my 2 cents on the quark -vs- inDesign debate.

I have used quark since its inception, and resisted the "switch" for years. We have totally switched over, and will not look back any time soon. Quark 8 has HUGE problems/issues, and there do not seem to be fast fixes coming. We make many catalogs that have tables that have been cut and pasted into linked/flowing text boxes. That way the entire catalog flows thru the pages as items are either added or deleted. Now if I open any of these files in quark 8.01, the tables no longer work properly any more. The first table on each page is fine, but any tables underneath those on the page have NO text in them. Just blank fields. Completely IMPOSSIBLE to use quark 8.x with ANY files prepared in this fashion. And we have hundreds of these catalogs. Quark has been aware of this impossible situation for at least 5-6 months now, and yet no fix.

The other major issue with quark is transparency. It does not work like it needs to work. Photoshop files that have drop shadows on layers over transparent backgrounds do not multiply into underlying images in quark as expected. Quark ignores the layer properties in photoshop documents. You'll need to re-composite all pages in photoshop to get the proper effects. I have been told by quark that "maybe" in quark 9 it will be fixed. Not even in the quark 8 product life.

Regarding InDesign, I am "discovering" new things daily (being a new user). Each time I find/learn how to do a task I wonder why quark did not think of it first. InDesign is amazing. Very stable. Tables can ONLY be built within a text box, so the text flow thing is native, unlike the clumsy cut/paste in quark to do the same thing.

When InDesign creates pdfs, or when you output to print, it uses the photoshop engine to resample all your images on pdf/output. All your PDF files are small because the images are optimized to your settings as the pdfs are made. No longer have to open each image, resize to placed size, and re-import into quark at 100%. Done by the program at output. Now, I know quark uses its vista to render picture alterations, but it does not use the photoshop settings you want/need. In testing, I have sized images myself, and also did the image alterations using quark's vista, and there is a HUGE difference in the images at sizing. Quark's are very blurry, and soft. Indesign's look like you just resized them in photoshop. Crisp, clear. Again, not a fix coming within quark 8, MAYBE in the quark 9 product life I was told. Unacceptable.

I would recommend CS4 suite, and the new QtoID translator plug-ins. Much better bang for your buck if you are looking to upgrade/purchase. The new plug-in that works with CS4 translates quark 8 files, in addition to any older versions you have. Now, it does not work flawlessly. You'll may need to adjust things in ID after translation.

But, if you are like almost everyone I have talked to about switching, once you do you will be very happy. InDesign does almost everything quark does, and SO much more.

The only problem I have with Quark is the lack of transparency support, and thats the big difference between the two applications. You would think when Quark decided to add transparency they also would have thought of a way to export it live. Up to version 8 now and still no support for it. Flattening transparency can cause lost production time, trying to get it to rip properly, if applied improperly, or if it needs to trap. Until Quark adds live transparency export, IMO it's not safe to use this feature, although if used without the transparency features, Quark is pretty much on par with InDesign.

geo:

Much better bang for your buck if you are looking to upgrade/purchase.

 

Not really. Quark's upgrades are much cheaper than Adobe's, you can easily afford PS+XP and still go for a nice weekend trip instead of upgrading CS.

InDesign does almost everything quark does, and SO much more.

 

True, Adobe is brilliant: http://adobegripes.tumblr.com/ (LOL)

-scaaty

s.caaty:

Not really. Quark's upgrades are much cheaper than Adobe's, you can easily afford PS+XP and still go for a nice weekend trip instead of upgrading CS.

Regarding pricing. Upgrades to the entire CS4 Design premium suite cost $599/US. Anyone using Photoshop and Illustrator (not to mention Acrobat [Pro]) would be foolish to upgrade these individually. I believe you have no idea when it comes to pricing.

And our flowing catalog's that quark 8 does not open properly? Maybe I'll just tell our customers that until quark 15 is out, there is no way we can continue the catalogs? To NOT TAKE THE TIME to be sure your OWN program is backward compatible is absolute foolishness. Must be what they mean by "excitement", "adventure" and "control" on the website! For sure the first 2.

 

geo:

I believe you have no idea when it comes to pricing.

 

Sorry, of course I forgot that the world outside America doesn't exit. How could I be so foolish?

If you ever manage to enter dragon land, here's what you would face in the Windmill Theme Park aka Netherland:

Upgrade Creative Suite 4: -> 900 EUR
Upgrade Photoshop CS4: -> 300 EUR
Upgrade QuarkXPress 8: -> 480 EUR
(Side note: EUR or Euro is a currency in Europe and is about 1.3x US dollars)

So you save $160 going for Quark and Photoshop, which - at least in my world - makes a nice weekend trip.

And that your catalogs don't open properly of course also applies to the world, I am sure. That we can work without any problems of course doesn't count. Maybe you just have computer issues? Great way of arguing. Not for me. Over and out.

-scaaty 

geo:

We have totally switched over, and will not look back any time soon. Quark 8 has HUGE problems/issues, and there do not seem to be fast fixes coming.

Why you post in the Quark Forum. You should be happy now and don't look back.…

I also work for a catalog company and we - a year ago- made the switch to ID. I continue to browse through these forums and usually find myself hanging out in the scripting forum looking for scripts that can be adapted to ID or a post that may spawn another efficiency idea. Anyway that's why I stick around. Please dont tell me I cant look through these forums:). Its been so long I forgot my PW /UN...so this is my first post.... The switch was not made because quark didnt work or we disliked quark, it was a decision based on as we upgrade we always get the premium suite to CS that contained ID with it. So we methodically made the switch at a pace that was manageable. Yes there were and still are new issues to overcome, ID is not perfect but in the essence of continuing to learn something new it makes designing seem like something fun again. Both programs certainly got the job done, do I like ID better-well I should keep that for a different forum. As I look back on the conversion one piece of software that was very instrumental was Markzware Q2ID. No its not convert and go, but it gave us a great jump start. If it werent for Quark-ID would not be where it is today? If it werent for ID-Quark may not be where they are today? I hope they both stick around. Its good for us!!

nobigdeal:

f it werent for Quark-ID would not be where it is today? If it werent for ID-Quark may not be where they are today? I hope they both stick around. Its good for us!!

You are absolutely right. I agree fully. Don't want to bother you.

Can you tell about the plugins for converting InDesign to Quark? I'm trying to figure out if it's just cheaper to give in and buy InDesign for this one project I need to make revisions to that's in InDesign or if I could somehow convert it to Quark - It's a 175 page document. Thx!

 Wendy, it might be best to post this as a new thread! This one looks like a long argument and I'm not sure people will bother to scroll down.

Check out Markzware, who do ID2Q which supports Quark 8 and CS4. It seems to do the job, but I've only used it to grab elements. There may be features that don't translate perfectly.

I work in an overworked design studio, so I'll throw in my two bits. We have lots of different projects, from ads to books, though not many catalogs with extensive tables. Of the three designers, we're all very fluent in Quark (old school?) and more or less fluent in ID (though one of us is really good) since we have to update inherited ID files. Frankly, none of us would start a new project in ID. Quark is better at handling handling type, and the workflow, especially tool use, is much more efficient and faster (for example, double click on a picture box, work on that image in photoshop and immediately import it). IT Enquirer did a report comparing speed and efficiency in Quark and ID and Quark won almost every category handily. That's not to say Quark doesn't have issues, though all of our printers have figured work arounds to the transparency problems. Building websites in Quark, including SWF files, is very popular now in Europe and adds a huge dimension to the program.

Readers might be interested in this article about one of Europe's largest publishers migrating from ID to Quark:

http://www.it-enquirer.com/main/ite/more/1652/

Building websites in Quark, including SWF files, is very popular now in Europe and adds a huge dimension to the program.

 

... care to provide some detail on that claim? Of the Quarks users I know, there's a total of ZERO who use these features.

While I agree to Quark having many advantages in terms of productivity, the lack of some basic features (such as a simple GREP) fuel my urge to take another look at ID.