Page 1 of 3

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 30 Jun 2004, 22:04
by rick
I was told this was the more appropraite place for my question, so here goes:

I work for a company that currently is using Quark Express 4.11 on Mac G4s OS 9.0.4. We're considering either uprading to OS X, Quark 6 or OS X In Design. I glanced through the forums at both sites (Quark and In Design) and they both seem to have a lot of same problems (mostly fonts and server problems). Would any of you guys/gals be so kind to offer some of what you think are the pros and cons of Quark 6? If you can offer any comparison to In Design, that would be helpful as well. Thanx for your help.

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 30 Jun 2004, 22:19
by longtimedesigner
There are any number of interesting articles and reviews available.

Here's one which may help you make a decision:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20604.html

Blatner used to be one of the biggest Quark advocates on the planet. Sandee Cohen was another one. Both switched to InDesign at version 2 and have stayed with the program since.

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 01 Jul 2004, 07:27
by Jim Oblak
When ID2 came out, I compared it to the beta/demo of Quark 5. Using the two together made the choice very clear. There really is no comparison. Quark is basically upgrading its application for OSX compatibility - - and it is still struggling with that. InDesign is upgrading its applications for its features (it already leaped over the OSX hurdle back on version 2).

Get an OSX box running and download the demos of the two programs. This is the best way to compare.

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 01 Jul 2004, 10:39
by willmark
-rick:

Here are some summations on the state of DTP based on various software:

PageMaker is at the end of its life and is likely to be discontinued on the PC soon, its already halfway there with it finished on the Mac.
Publisher is nothing short of being typical Microsoft crap software, always trying to guess what you want to do next instead of letting you do what you want.
Xpress is in serious trouble, InDesign is gaining market share if for no other reason then you get InDesign, when you by the Creative Suite. Simple economics really, Pay $1,000 US for Xpress alone or get everything you need for $1,2999. Also InDesign is far superior than Xpress in many areas. Plus if you already own Photoshop you can upgrade to the Creative Suite for $749.
Nobody uses Multi Ad Creator, even thou it made it to OSX before Quark did. I actually loaded it up once and it gave me that Publisher/Corel Draw feel, ugh.
That leaves one choice for a viable product with a future ahead of it, InDesign.

Many will differ on the points and say that Xpress is better. I disagree, and this is coming from someone who indorsed Xpress for 12 years.

As a Systems Tech now I cant tell you how much easier InDesign is then Xpress to trouble shoot. When we evaluated InDesign vs. Xpress I put my old designer hat back on and looked at it from that perspective. InDesign is everything that longtime Quark users always asked for and then some. It was no contest really, plus the economics made perfect sense.

Fonts are much better if you move to a font management tool such as Font Agent Pro on OSX. Old fonts can give ID some problems, which have been well documented at this point, search the adobe InDesign forums, its been discussed several times there. Removing unnecessary fonts from the OS on OSX is highly recommended,

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106417

This is still relevant for Panther as well as Jaguar:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75494

Try out both as a demo first and decide which fits your workflow the best. Be aware on the Mac Quark 6.1 and InDesign CS will only work on OSX. Quark 6.1 and InDesign CS will only work on Windows 2000 and XP on the PC. In either scenario a upgrade of software will be needed. Since you are on Macs upgrating to Panther (10.3) should not be that difficult.

PS: In the meantime you want to apply the updates to your OS9 System. The path is as follows: 9.0.4>9.1>9.2.1>9.2.2 All are free downloads from http://www.apple.com

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 01 Jul 2004, 10:47
by almaink
We are not having those problems with InDesign-CS and Windows.[/quote]

Bet you are not outputting to an Imagesetter are you?

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 02 Jul 2004, 15:06
by Ira
[strong]willmark:[/strong]-rick:

Here are some summations on the state of DTP based on various software:

PageMaker is at the end of its life and is likely to be discontinued on the PC soon, its already halfway there with it finished on the Mac.
Publisher is nothing short of being typical Microsoft crap software, always trying to guess what you want to do next instead of letting you do what you want.
Xpress is in serious trouble, InDesign is gaining market share if for no other reason then you get InDesign, when you by the Creative Suite. Simple economics really, Pay $1,000 US for Xpress alone or get everything you need for $1,2999. Also InDesign is far superior than Xpress in many areas. Plus if you already own Photoshop you can upgrade to the Creative Suite for $749.
Nobody uses Multi Ad Creator, even thou it made it to OSX before Quark did. I actually loaded it up once and it gave me that Publisher/Corel Draw feel, ugh.
That leaves one choice for a viable product with a future ahead of it, InDesign.

Many will differ on the points and say that Xpress is better. I disagree, and this is coming from someone who indorsed Xpress for 12 years.

As a Systems Tech now I cant tell you how much easier InDesign is then Xpress to trouble shoot. When we evaluated InDesign vs. Xpress I put my old designer hat back on and looked at it from that perspective. InDesign is everything that longtime Quark users always asked for and then some. It was no contest really, plus the economics made perfect sense.

Fonts are much better if you move to a font management tool such as Font Agent Pro on OSX. Old fonts can give ID some problems, which have been well documented at this point, search the adobe InDesign forums, its been discussed several times there. Removing unnecessary fonts from the OS on OSX is highly recommended,

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=106417

This is still relevant for Panther as well as Jaguar:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75494

Try out both as a demo first and decide which fits your workflow the best. Be aware on the Mac Quark 6.1 and InDesign CS will only work on OSX. Quark 6.1 and InDesign CS will only work on Windows 2000 and XP on the PC. In either scenario a upgrade of software will be needed. Since you are on Macs upgrating to Panther (10.3) should not be that difficult.

PS: In the meantime you want to apply the updates to your OS9 System. The path is as follows: 9.0.4>9.1>9.2.1>9.2.2 All are free downloads from http://www.apple.com

Very well said...or well-written, I should say.

Yes, I'm still on Q (6.1), but I've simply seen, read and experienced too much with Q to keep me from making the one-time painful leap to ID when Q7 comes out. That's when I make that jump.

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 03 Jul 2004, 03:26
by John K
>Bet you are not outputting to an Imagesetter are you?

Hmmm

Very interesting. Throwing comments out like this without backing them up with your rip you are using, whether you are using composite or separated output, postscript level or how old the version of your rip is.

Well, here is one printer who can chew up and spit gold with whatever I choose to send to my rip. InDesign, piece of cake and trouble free on both Windows and Mac.

Xpress, well that damnable bleed xtension for asymmetrical bleeds prevents a bleed being stored in a printer preset. Have to yank it out and use symmetrical bleeds. That is a minor issue. Try Xpress's remapping of spot colors for placed graphics and using deviceN output. Poor remapping can cause the remapped spot colors to print as cmyk or come over as its original designation which cause multiple spots coming through.

Or try this, create a Illustrator image as 286 CV and place it into Quark 6. HmmmIt places as C. Now, create a monotone in Photoshop as 286 C and place in a new document in Quark 6. Wow, it places as 286, NO C. Now, export to pdf using deviceN and see that spot color go to cmyk.

Now, some rips can extract the spot data from Xpress's postscript. Simply because they do a little magic of their own in spite of Xpress. Ever wonder how some rips can extract spot data when a image is ripped as COMPOSITE CMYK? They are not suppose to since a user wanted to rip and convert spot to cmyk with that setting but they do because they with Xpress's inadequacy.

So, I work in a composite workflow utilizing ps3 in a pdf workflow. My rip can support 1.4 pdfs and I have NO trouble with transparency. In fact, you cannot give me enough transparency. Oh, and no CID encoding issues either.

>Bet you are not outputting to an Imagesetter are you?

Forgive me as I laugh out loud some more. If your rips cannot handle it, your options are to develop workarounds, refuse the work, or upgrade your systems. Each of these options have pros and cons. Question is, will your decision be short or far sighted.

InDesign is not going away and neither is Quark. Prepress will need to be proficient in both applications and learn how to rip from both consistently.

BTW, I have had no troubles ripping files from day 1 with InDesign 2. The big scary transparency monster had no effect on me.

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 06 Jul 2004, 07:07
by a.hayton
John K. "Or try this, create a Illustrator image as 286 CV and place it into Quark 6. HmmmIt places as C. Now, create a monotone in Photoshop as 286 C and place in a new document in Quark 6. Wow, it places as 286, NO C. Now, export to pdf using deviceN and see that spot color go to cmyk"
In response to this part of your text, the monotone from photoshop goes to cmyk because you need to create separations from DCS files. Photoshop doesn't allow you to save this type of file as a normal eps. You have to save it as a DCS 2.0 eps. Quark and Adobe still haven' got that one totally licked.

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 06 Jul 2004, 07:55
by Jim Oblak
http://www.creativepro.com/printerfrien ... 21602.html

I'm doing some research: Are there similar press releases for those that are switching to Quark?

Quark 6 vs. In design

Posted: 06 Jul 2004, 09:22
by John K
[img]../../themes/default/images/icon-quote.gif">%20[strong]easternherp:[/strong]John%20K.%20"Or%20try%20this,%20create%20a%20Illustrator%20image%20as%20286%20CV%20and%20place%20it%20into%20Quark%206.%20HmmmIt%20places%20as%20C.%20Now,%20create%20a%20monotone%20in%20Photoshop%20as%20286%20C%20and%20place%20in%20a%20new%20document%20in%20Quark%206.%20Wow,%20it%20places%20as%20286,%20NO%20C.%20Now,%20export%20to%20pdf%20using%20deviceN%20and%20see%20that%20spot%20color%20go%20to%20cmyk[/img] In response to this part of your text, the monotone from photoshop goes to cmyk because you need to create separations from DCS files. Photoshop doesn't allow you to save this type of file as a normal eps. You have to save it as a DCS 2.0 eps. Quark and Adobe still haven' got that one totally licked.

Easternherp, what you post is not true.

Do this and report back your findings.

Place the monotone 286 image. In Quark, edit colors and add the C to the end of the pms 286 name. (so the name matches EXACTLY with what is shown in Photoshop)

Export your pdf now and tell me if it retains the spot color. Do not be fooled if the screen preview does not come through and the spot shows as black. The screen preview color can also be fixed but it requires workarounds. When you check separations, it will separate correctly.

As to the comment for Adobe products not getting this right, what applications are you referring to? Illustrator is a pita with duotones but InDesign handles them very well.

>the monotone from photoshop goes to cmyk because you need to create separations from DCS files.

DCS format is a workaround format that should have been killed off long ago. I blame the Photoshop team for not addressing this. The CS applications handle spot raster beautifully now between applications. I will not be satisfied until Photoshop can save spot raster out to eps (not duotones) and retain spot raster for other applications to use in a COMPOSITE workflow.