Hot Stuff
Win a Wacom Tablet
We're giving away one Wacom tablet!
Forums > Software > QuarkXPress
Written by Maria Siebeck on April 30, 2008
Which do you prefer, Quark or InDesign and why?
A Service of 
Copyright 1999-2011 PrintingForLess.com and CreativePro.com, All rights reserved.
Or does it depend on the situation?
I gotta admit that I use InDesign more, and so am more comfortable with it. But some of the freelancers I talk to say that they switch freely between the apps depending on the client or job requirements. How many does that apply to on CreativePro?
Terri Stone
Editor in Chief, CreativePro.com
InDesign or bust
We usually dictate to our clients the fact we design in InDesign. I am sure if we got a big enough contract we would do the work in Quark if demanded by the client.
InDesign or XPress? Hunh?
Aw, c'mon,
You need to ask who uses them both and how much? I have used XPress 3, 4, 6.5, and 7 for years and InDesign 2.0 for about an hour. I just haven't had the time or effort to learn it and the old rule of "the program you know is much more capable than the one you don't know" still applies.
It is not like there are a lot of people who are equally conversant with both programs. I am still learning how to use XPress and I have been using it for nine years!
Steve Ruis
InDesign vs QXP
I have to agree completely with the previous posts. I was a die-hard QXP user (I go back to QXP3, too, same as Mr. Ruis) but needed to learn ID for certain clients. I still use both, depending on what the original files were created with, as much of my work consists of updating older files. I don't bother switching QXP files to ID (even though Markzware has the software) because it really isn't necessary! When it's up to me, I am now comfortable enough with ID to start new projects with it rather than QXP. After getting over the problem of missing my old keyboard shortcuts from QXP, I actually have to say I am liking ID more and more each time I use it.
I have been working temp assignments through recruiters, and have found many employers now DON'T EVEN WANT YOU if you aren't an expert in ID CS3!! Fortunately, there are the occasional companies that still want an expert in QXP.
A few years ago, I taught my son (now 14) the basics of QXP. I am thinking it may be time to teach him ID.
Jan
QXP v ID
I use both but prefer QXP as I know it inside out. The frustrations of QXP are the lack of ability to outline type on the fly when producing final PDFs for printers and the lack of ability to import native AI files. That's it - it is much faster than ID because I know ALL the short cuts but ID has advantages too - cleaner PDF export, black for example is processed as a clean colour whereas Quark EPS files imported into Illustrator CS to turn them into line creates CMYK black no matter what I do - hopefully the upgrade to CS3 (sitting in a box on top of my new 24" iMac) will do the trick. If only Adobe would listen to the users and clean up the interface (you know - the ability to choose what the file is to be used for - print or web), the ability to use only PMS colours (not RGB), losing half the palettes off the screen which are really confusing because everyone seems to like sorting them in a different order, the abililty to export bezier designs to Illustrator(!!!!), the ability to pull apart PDF files (originally created in InDesign), I could go on but both programmes have their faults. They just approach the same end from different directions. The real reason Adobe have the market share is because the software is given away as a bundle making it about as cheap as a free toy with your junk food takeways!!!!! Any employer will of course always go for the cheap option.
InDesign or XPress
I'd love to be proficient in both programs but I haven't found time to learn InDesign. Like Steve, I've used XPress almost since its introduction. I know it so well and can work in it so quickly that it hardly makes sense to work more slowly in InDesign when I have a deadline looming. That said, I know I need to learn how to use InDesign since more and more of my favorite resources seem to be focusing on it.
InDesign vs. Quark
I started in this business (book publishing/production artist) using Quark 3.3 about 15 years ago. That was really all you could use unless you wanted to do your work in Pagemaker.
As the industry has changed I had to adapt to InDesign and started with InDesign 2.0.
I just wanted to scream. Then we went to CS, CS2, and now CS3. I have to say that I like InDesign now. I like all the features it offers and it is much more intuitive and easier to use than the initial programs. I think to some extent they have too many overlapping features between their programs but hey.....
Now we work in both, but more and more,I think it will shift to InDesign. I think the interchangeability (is that a word) of programs and all the features it allows makes the difference.
99% of our clients in the book publishing field want there files in InDesign. We still do some files in Quark but they are usually files that have been done initially in Quark. And even a lot of those the clients are now wanting in InDesign. In fact, we still do most of our work in Quark in 4. I have updated at home to 7.0 but have had little use for it with the client base that I have.
Not the best review, but somewhat brain dead today....
Pete
Dreamspeaker Graphics
QXD or ID - or both...
I have used Quark since the first beta version - more than 20 years - and have resisted ID, even though it comes with Creative Suite. "Driving" Quark is automatic after all these years. After upgrading from Tiger, much to my dismay (to say the least!), I discovered transparency in Quark does not work in Leopard. Huge problem - no drop shadows, no screened images, boxes, etc. - no way that would do. So, I was left with no choice but to begin designing in InDesign. Being able to change the keyboard shortcuts from ID's default to Quark 4 helps - although some of them do not work the same. I've been using ID for new projects - at the present that means large and small POP material, ads, etc. and I like it a lot. I especially like the way it so easily converts to pdf, eps, etc. and the way you utilize its color. It is very intuitive and you can tell it is aimed at the graphic designer. However, every six months we produce a 100 page catalog I would feel more comfortable keeping in Quark because I like the way Quark handles text better, and its shadows (when they work) are much prettier than IDs. Although I am not as proficient in ID as Quark, I am so comfortable (and it is fun) I now do all POP in this program. I can see myself switching between the two from now on. That is, IF Quark 8 has successfully addressed the transparency issue.
A very good reason for Quark
First, I have been an InDesign user since day one and have never looked back. Not much to say here except that I have always preferred InDesign since its release.
The reason for Quark is the same reason why I choose InDesign. Workflow needs and application preferences can vary greatly from company to company and person to person.
One size does not fit all in the creative world --- at least that has been my experience. Long live Quark for those that choose it!
Quark comeback?
I have used and still use both and I guess until Quark 8 arrived last month I would have found it hard to really push Quarks corner sure 7 was a good step in the right direction and has some excellent features but these never really matched up with the design extras you got as standard in Indesign.
However Quark 8 is a stunning update and really puts the hole debate back into the arena, Quarks new tools and features have really won me over and I love it to bits.
Quark 8 Demo
I would suggest Downloading the demo and giving it a shot
Quark vs. InDesign, a question
I have heard that InDesign has taken a huge amount of business from Quark (I heard Quark's revenue is down 80% this year), but does anyone (unbiased) know what the current numbers actually are?
Love Quark!!!
I am very happy with QuarkXpress. I know and have used InDesign some, but coming from a typographer and artist background....QuarkXpress is so much better with text and fine tuning every project. But, knowing Quark as well as I do.....InDesign is very similar and can easily jump into that program and know what I am doing. Could not believe they use the old PageMaker way on some things.....that is a dinosaur.....so all that call us old users of Quark dinosaurs.......I really could not believe that InDesign is actually closer to PageMaker!!!
Quark will go quietly, but it will go.
I am very conversant in Quark and Indesign. I made a personal switch to InDesign around InDesign version 2( maily because quark was too expensive). I got quark because I had clients that still used it, but two years ago, they also went over to InDesign.
And I honestly believe that more than anything, as new designers come out of school, InDesign will be the norm. And even those organizations that have fight the change will be faced with two choices;
1. Keep with Quark, but be faced with the cost of retraining anyone that comes into their design studio.
or
2. Face the cost of changing over to InDesign, but then having a pool of worker that will know the program from day one.
I feel that Quark will almost outdate itself because it won't be competitive in the Educational market.. I believe Adobe will have a monopoly on being taught in art and design school in the near future- and that will heavily influence the job market as a new generation of designers become managers.
I'm 35, and if I took over a design office, I'd chuck Quark as quickly as I could, even though I do feel that Quark has some advantages, I think they are few, and in the end I believe InDesign's easy interface with the Creative Suite greatly increases productivity.
Just my Thoughts
Quark will go quietly, but it will go.
BTW(from previous post) I'm Tariq Hassan and you can find me at www.TariqHassan.com.
Regards,
Tariq.
Quark will go quietly, but it will go.
BTW(from previous post) I'm Tariq Hassan and you can find me at www.TariqHassan.com.
Regards,
Tariq.
Awesome website Tariq!
I went to your website....awesome work and a very amazing resume!!! Thanks for your comments on Quark....from the Quark Lover. I too realize that the expense of Quark is why most designers made the switch. I know when InDesign first came out it was a printer's nightmare....but they made improvements on the next version, which is probably when most definitely made the switch as you did. I just need to force myself to become more familiar with InDesign to make the final judgement. Quark's pricing has come down and our shop has decided to upgrade to Quark8 and we are still keep Quark around since we are all so experienced on it. We, of course have both programs to work with. I just hope Quark does not go like you said!!! It was around before InDesign and it's sad that pricing is what might bring it down!! Again, nice work and thanks for sharing your thoughts!
InDesign all the way!
I have been using Quark since version 3.3 over 15 years ago to design and produce magazines. Since the advent of InDesign CS, I switched over and have never looked back.
I use InDesign all day every day and am now using CS4. I have just bought Quark 8 to comply with a client's needs and although it will do pretty much the same job, InDesign does everything quicker and much more efficiently. Quark still has a 'quirky', unfinished feel whereas InDesign (and all the CS4 apps) are much more polished and ultimately useable. InDesign seems to have a much quicker route to any solution.
I'm not biased, having used Quark versions 3.3, 4, 5 & 6, just living in the real world of day-to-day magazine production. If my client had not dictated the need for QXP 8, there's no way in a million years that I would have shelled out the best part of £1,000.
Colin Halliday
www.v-creative.co.uk
You're missing the larger value of Quark 8
If you're an InDesign user resigned to staying with print only, that's fine. But the future of publishing design will be creating multi-platform functionality of content-rich material for a variety of devices, especially mobile devices. In this regard, Quark 8 is a much more advanced application.
I use InDesign, and it's great for print. But try repurposing an InDesign layout for interactive use and you'll see that Quark 8 is vastly superior.
Adobe always positions their superiority as "Quark v. CS", not Quark v. InDesign. And yes, if you're as skilled in Flash, Dreamweaver and other CS applications as you are in InDesign, that's great. But for a print designer who wants to transition their primary design skills to the digital arena, Quark is much easier and offers a far smoother progression.
Don't compare just the cost of the each program, consider also the learning curve cost. I'm not suggesting that Quark 8 can replace Flash or Dreamweaver, but it's the fastest entry for print designers who want to leverage their design skills in an interactive environment. InDesign alone isn't even close.
Quark XPress
If Quark XPress loses the war, we'll all be at Adobe's mercy. Think about that for a moment.
John
Just when I think I'm out...
When I first saw InDesign (they were just moving to version 2), and a way to get away from the clutches of Quark, I totally leapt at it. My day job was still using Quark 4, but on the side I was launching a magazine with a couple of friends. One of the first things I decided was that I wouldn't do a single thing for the magazine in Quark — it was going to be my InDesign training ground. So I got good at it, real fast!
And I became a total convert.
Sadly, for the longest time through the middle 00's, it seemed like every job I would move to was a hardcore Quark (4) shop. It would take me a year or more to get them to consider switching, then, once they finally did, it would time for me to move on. And then the next shop would be using Quark! I started 4 different jobs like that. Thankfully, the last time I had to touch Quark was more than 3 years ago.
Until now. I agreed to help out a friend who has a little design studio, but unbeknownst to me, she'd never made the switch. So now I'm stuck working on these massive files (400+ pages) in g--d--- Quark. And even though she's up to Quark 8 now, it still sucks! Half of the things that used to drive me nuts about that program are still there!
Nine years and four versions later, and they still can't make that damn thing user friendly? Compared to the incredible features in InDesign now (GREP, anyone?) I may as well still be using Quark 3
A Mixed Bag
For my book design and content I tend to use InDesign CS4. The book/long document panel is superb and outputting to PDF is a one-stop deal, unlike QXP. And Search function is fantastic as a previous poster said. However I'm using QXP8 about equal share for other jobs and I much prefer the cleaner and simpler interface. Adobe suffers us with panel glut and every obscure feature choice imaginable and for some that may be great but more often it can get in my way of creativity or speed. At least I can set up a custom workspace.
If Quark works out the inconsistencies with book production and PDF output (that doesn't need Acrobat Pro) then it would be more difficult for me to choose one over the other. I see Quark 8.5 is now available for free download so I will update and see what is new.
Food for thought: without Quark is there any genuine competitor to Adobe left?
Switched to ID and never looked back!
I switched to InDesign with version 1.0 and never looked back! Granted, 1.0 was pretty slow because Adobe had enabled full-resolution preview by default. But, three or six months later, they come out with 1.5, and I could actually work efficiently.
I switched because ID contained all the features that I would have to buy as very expensive extensions from Quark's partners. Simple scaling of multiple boxes, or scaling a type box. I don't remember exactly. But, I would have to pay hundreds of dollars extra to QuarkXTension partners to do the same.
The main reason, perhaps, is that Quark wanted $1500 for their "Passport" version. And, I don't even think that included Japanese/Chinese/Korean. Yes! I could type in Japanese with just the standard version of InDesign, and I could tag text as Spanish and other languages for spell checking. Not so with Quark, back then. Don't know about today...guess it is built into the operating system. Sure, ID has a dedicated Japanese program, and I still cannot make vertical text in ID; but, ...