I Quit

Kick back on the couch and discuss all things not directly related to QuarkXPress.
almaink
Posts: 237
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 08:38

I Quit

Post by almaink » 09 Aug 2011, 03:14

Faster? How? Indy has the 9 point position finder something Xpress never had and I'm guessing never will. Unless you like to live with the calculator on your desktop and do math all day I can't see how anyone could design anything that requires exact positioning faster using Xpress. Another thing about Xpress is exporting to PDF. With InDesign I get consistent results version to version, with Xpress it's always a crap shoot as to how the PDF will come out.Without support for imported transparent objects Xpress is also lagging. You use what you want to do your design work, but I know from years of experience that an Xpress job means extra time when it comes to making plates for the press.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3263
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

I Quit

Post by eyoungren » 09 Aug 2011, 04:06

I have to disagree a little with the PDF issue almaink. We've been using ID for a while now and I've had it choke quite a few times on drag/drop import of PDFs. Had to resort to actual CMD+D placing. Additionally, there just seem to be times where I can't get a decent PDF out of ID. Usually then I end up exporting an EPS. I will agree and say that ID handles PDF much better (at least up to version 8.x, the last version I've used), but ID isn't always consistent on PDF export.
I won't disagree with you on speed, although it irritates me sometimes when the 9point indicator has a mind of it's own and decides to calculate from the center or the bottom right or whatever. Coming from XPress I'm used to top left so I have it set that way and want to keep it that way.
Transparency. ID is excellent, although I had my first transparent PSD file two weeks ago and ID didn't want to print the page. Had to resort to a transparent TIF.
I will give you this though. I have gone from preparing my content for import to QXP (make sure it's CMYK, grayscale, blah, blah, blah) to letting ID take care of that.

GLUON
Posts: 8
Joined: 30 Aug 2004, 10:14

I Quit

Post by GLUON » 10 Aug 2011, 03:36

I think you haven't spent much time in Quark 9, understandably as you are happy with ID. However,it does support transparent EPS, TIFF, PNG, PSD and PDF so that's a little off. It also supports multiple synchronized layouts where different styles of the same content can be updated one place and all will update in their respective styles which is nice when you're working on a set of related documents. It also has way better typography controls [better hanging punctuation, conditional styles, box baseline grids, better bullets and numbers, more box shape controls, ability to unlink boxes with text in them without upsetting flow and it's just proven to require less "mouse miles per design" so it's also more ergonomic.That's not even to mention the vastly superior Digital Publishing tools and 9.1 will be Lion native very soon.

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3263
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

I Quit

Post by eyoungren » 10 Aug 2011, 04:30

GLUON wrote:
I think you haven't spent much time in Quark 9, understandably as you are happy with ID. However,it does support transparent EPS, TIFF, PNG, PSD and PDF so that's a little off. It also supports multiple synchronized layouts where different styles of the same content can be updated one place and all will update in their respective styles which is nice when you're working on a set of related documents. It also has way better typography controls [better hanging punctuation, conditional styles, box baseline grids, better bullets and numbers, more box shape controls, ability to unlink boxes with text in them without upsetting flow and it's just proven to require less "mouse miles per design" so it's also more ergonomic.That's not even to mention the vastly superior Digital Publishing tools and 9.1 will be Lion native very soon.

Assuming you are speaking to meas almaink can inform you, I am a die-hard Quark fan. I have no particular love for ID, although I am liking it more as I use it. But I still love XPress. It's what I learned on and I've used it up to version 8.x. I have 9.x. What I DON'T have is an Intel Mac.
In any case, concerning PDF and transparency. Unless Quark has changed this in version 9.x any PDFs imported are FLATTENED. And yes, QXP handles PSD. The PSD XTension was introduced in version 6.x. As of version 8.x you could still not do anything complex with it or you'd end up importing a composit image (which is the same as importing a TIF). Can you manipulate a PSD in QXP 9.x as you can in ID CS4?
You can export a PDF with transparency from XPress, but you have to know which setting to use. You can do this via PS file if you know which setting you have to change in Distiller so that it will distill transparency natively. QXP has handle transparent EPS since at least version 4.04 (which is where I came in). I've not ever had issues with that (mostly not). I will say as of version 8.x I trust QXP's Export to PDF function much more, but no where near as much as I trust ID. Can you get a PDF-X/4:2008 out of XPress 9.x? Layered PDF with embedded fonts? You can't with version 8.x.
ID's type tools are confusing and I think idiotic. ID is palette happy and much of my time learning it has been spent creating keyboard shortcuts for palette commands. I much prefer how XPress handles typography.
I don't use synchronized layouts. I work for a newspaper and I work with ads. Export a PDF proof from ID, place in newspaper document to merge with editorial content (EPS files) and print. If there is a change, open the ad document, make the change, overwrite the PDF, update in ID. I did the same when using XPress, except we used EPS files (incidentally, XPress did not get font embedding in EPS files until version 7.x!). So, while synchronized layouts may be nice and useful it's not any part of our workflow. Not a design studio where multiple elements are reflected across multiple project files.
Don't use baseline grids. We are a weekly newspaper. That fine level of control is unnecessary and the editorial side is built in ID CS2 on PC anyway. I deal with ads where there is even LESS need for baseline grids. Box shape controls. Hands down XPress. I have to use a script to get rounded corners in ID. WTF?!
"Less mouse miles per design." Absolutely, QXP is keyboard shortcut driven. ID is palette/mouse driven. I hate that which is why I have spent so much time making keyboard shortcuts for palette features in ID.
Digital Publishing tools. Again, we are a newspaper. We still cut and paste our articles to our website. Digital Publishing tools not necessary. Lion. We have PPC Macs. We can't run Snow Leopard, let alone Lion so that has no bearing here.
Sorry, don't mean to be snippy in this, but I've been using XPress since 1999 from version 4.04 to 8.51. I'm quite familiar with the program![:D]

User avatar
Glenn McDowall
Posts: 753
Joined: 03 Nov 2004, 05:45

I Quit

Post by Glenn McDowall » 12 Aug 2011, 10:25

sorry to be dim but what are you defining as a "transparent EPS" ?

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3263
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

I Quit

Post by eyoungren » 12 Aug 2011, 12:21

I took that to mean "transparent background." I.e., no background at all. QXP 4.x had the ability to do this via XTensions.

compositor
Posts: 6
Joined: 12 Sep 2011, 17:13

I Quit

Post by compositor » 12 Sep 2011, 13:33

I also have been using QuarkXpress for 20 years professionally having taught myself during a long period of unemployment. I am a printer by trade and need to work for a living by being employed by an employer. So the more skills I have the more employable I am. I have taught myself all the Adobe programs including Indesign which I have used extensively over the years on many top magazines. I used the earlier versions of QuarkXpress from version 3 and yes it was great and good for a long time. However times change, but what doesn't change is the need to get work. The more flexible we are the better. To be highly skilled in Quark 9 and Indesign CS5 is what I go for to keep my options open.Lastly if I may say, QuarkXpress has a very large user base, yes Indesign is now widely used also, but the learning curve in Quark is easier with the program having many faces now and able do what Adobe needs multiple programs to achieve. To be able to use one modern program to achieve so much is desirable, surely?

User avatar
eyoungren
Posts: 3263
Joined: 27 May 2004, 16:08
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Contact:

I Quit

Post by eyoungren » 12 Sep 2011, 16:14

I can agree with that last statement, although I would not have a year or so ago. Luis V has written considerably on this in the Suggestions forum. He believes that a multifaceted program is best because it allows you to do multiple things. He also further argues that the time of designers needing to know code is (and should be) over. From his point of view we should simply be designing. The medium is immaterial.
I've moved more towards his outlook on that, but I'm still not completely convinced that a program should try to be all things to all people.
In reference to Adobe and multiple programs. True. Adobe also has the problem that over the years they have trained their user base to expect upgrades every so many months. Unfortunately, Adobe's "upgrades" tend to be minimal or few or both. Quark on the other hand while often taking longer to develop an upgrade tends to release a program that has real new features. I just happend to not need or not care for a few of those and sometimes wish there was more of a focus on old longstanding bugfixes. I will say Quark is getting quicker on it though. As an example, I complained last year about XPress 8's lack of a panning option when using the pen tool and being zoomed in to a path. Quark has finally fixed that with 9.1. Yes, it's another version, but compared to the past, this concern was addressed rather quickly.

Post Reply

Return to “Sofa Threads”