We ( Newspaper publication ) are planning to move from pagemaker software to in design or quark software .Kindly give your opinion about both .which is good by considering its features and price concern. we the newspaper printing publication having 7 branches in different locations. So please tell me about normal workflow softwares require for newspaper industry.
In Design or Quark Xpress
- Thread starter sibikb
- Start date
Greg_Firestone
Well-known member
Hi sibikb,
I hate to answer a question with more questions but I have a few ...
Are you looking for a individual copies of a layout application for your editorial departments or are you eventually planning on a editorial system which includes/integrates with the layout apps?
If you're only looking at individual copies of Quark or InDesign, it comes down to a direct comparison between the two applications. I'd recommend taking advantage of the trial periods and letting your editorial staff play with them. Both apps contain many bells and whistles but pay attention the the features which are actually used for your work. For example, I doubt you'll be exporting flash websites from either app. Each app will have a learning curve. If more users are familiar with app X over app Y, it might make a difference as well.
If you are looking at a editorial system (outside of Quark's and Adobe's), talk to the vendors you are looking at. Most integrate with both applications though some may lean more towards one versus the other for best compatibility with their system. If you are looking at an company-wide editorial solution where all editorial departments use a common solution, you'll want to focus just as much attention to the editorial solution as you do to layout app used.
It's hard to go by price alone. The retail price between Quark and InDesign is differ by about $100 USD. If you're buying volume, you'll get a better price. But there is more to it than just the cost of the software. If one app requires more training, your training costs will go up. If your computers need hardware/software upgrades to run one versus the other, your costs will increase.
So I think I've succeeded in responding to your post but not answering your question.
Greg
I hate to answer a question with more questions but I have a few ...
Are you looking for a individual copies of a layout application for your editorial departments or are you eventually planning on a editorial system which includes/integrates with the layout apps?
If you're only looking at individual copies of Quark or InDesign, it comes down to a direct comparison between the two applications. I'd recommend taking advantage of the trial periods and letting your editorial staff play with them. Both apps contain many bells and whistles but pay attention the the features which are actually used for your work. For example, I doubt you'll be exporting flash websites from either app. Each app will have a learning curve. If more users are familiar with app X over app Y, it might make a difference as well.
If you are looking at a editorial system (outside of Quark's and Adobe's), talk to the vendors you are looking at. Most integrate with both applications though some may lean more towards one versus the other for best compatibility with their system. If you are looking at an company-wide editorial solution where all editorial departments use a common solution, you'll want to focus just as much attention to the editorial solution as you do to layout app used.
It's hard to go by price alone. The retail price between Quark and InDesign is differ by about $100 USD. If you're buying volume, you'll get a better price. But there is more to it than just the cost of the software. If one app requires more training, your training costs will go up. If your computers need hardware/software upgrades to run one versus the other, your costs will increase.
So I think I've succeeded in responding to your post but not answering your question.
Greg
Colorblind
Well-known member
Wow, great post to comment on today. We had one of our customer's ad published in today's edition of one daily newspaper in my area and noticed that almost a full line of 16pt text went missing. Knowing I supplied CMYK only PDFX/1a to this newspaper, I wanted to know why it happened. The rep told me they reproduced the problem on their side. Turn out that part of their workflow, at layout stage, is to place supplied PDFs in Quark and that's where it happened. I've "refried" PDFs trouble free in InDesign in the past but would be very scared to do the same in Quark...
ericmadsen
Active member
Quark is far less intuitive, particularly for those with a PageMaker background. Quark is buggier than InDesign, is more crash-prone, has issues with recognizing certain fonts that load fine into the OS and are recognized by all other apps, omits Trim Box information in Postscript created using the Print dialog (even if you include crop marks), features a buggy and sometimes broken PDF Export function that creates bloated PDFs... I could go on but don't want to rant. Quark yields substantially larger PDF filesizes compared with InDesign-created PDFs (or even InDesign-"refried" Quark PDFs) with identical actual content. This true even if you distill Postscript created with Quark's "Export" function, which in turn is a workaround for known issues with its "Print to Postscript" function that Quark has acknowledged for years but hasn't fixed.
Without my having ever made this recommendation to any Quark user, I've been watching my clients upgrade one by one from Quark to InDesign. That both exist drives innovation, but I've yet to witness anyone switch from InDesign to Quark.
It's a personal choice, but having had years' of experience in both, I cannot stress enough that I think you'll be happier with InDesign.
Without my having ever made this recommendation to any Quark user, I've been watching my clients upgrade one by one from Quark to InDesign. That both exist drives innovation, but I've yet to witness anyone switch from InDesign to Quark.
It's a personal choice, but having had years' of experience in both, I cannot stress enough that I think you'll be happier with InDesign.
Last edited:
I have several customers still using PageMaker 6.5. We require them to send PDF's though as there is no room in the quoted prices for us to have to deal with PageMaker.
ericmadsen
Active member
I know the feeling! Is it me, or did PageMaker run faster and deliver more reliable output a decade ago?!?
At the time, some people called it 'RageMaker'. I just thought: "get over it guys, at least it's not QuarkXPress".
At the time, some people called it 'RageMaker'. I just thought: "get over it guys, at least it's not QuarkXPress".
western411
Active member
Use Both
Use Both
I have worked with both softwares since their original releases. Over time I found Indesign has become my first choice. Since most imposition is PDF based, working with Indesign -an Adobe product- has given us less problems building PDF's. Making a good PDF from Quark can still at times be an issue and add's an extra step. Since many plugs are built around the Adobe products we found more plugins for the Adobe line than Quark and better PDF integration. Adobe is not stupid, we feel they make sure their code fights with Quark when it comes to PDF's. I would have BOTH softwares ready to use. You can always find a version of Quark on ebay if need be. We take native Quark files and build a PDF which we then auto place in a Indesign imposition template for press production. Since many customers like to provide PDF's it's better to have native software available to make a correct PDF than have to fight with a messed supplied PDF.
Use Both
I have worked with both softwares since their original releases. Over time I found Indesign has become my first choice. Since most imposition is PDF based, working with Indesign -an Adobe product- has given us less problems building PDF's. Making a good PDF from Quark can still at times be an issue and add's an extra step. Since many plugs are built around the Adobe products we found more plugins for the Adobe line than Quark and better PDF integration. Adobe is not stupid, we feel they make sure their code fights with Quark when it comes to PDF's. I would have BOTH softwares ready to use. You can always find a version of Quark on ebay if need be. We take native Quark files and build a PDF which we then auto place in a Indesign imposition template for press production. Since many customers like to provide PDF's it's better to have native software available to make a correct PDF than have to fight with a messed supplied PDF.
photoshopdude
Active member
Indesign!
Indesign!
Hello, I've been in prepress for the last 25 years, and I work in quark and Indesign everyday.
In my opinion Indesign is far superior to Quark.
One of the things I like best about Indesign is the ability to jump back and forth between Photoshop and Illustrator when doing edits, it saves me time and aggravation.
Indesign just has so many features that Quark does not, I like the ink manager, the separations viewer, also the preflight function to name a few things.
Quark used to be king back in the day but I cringe every time we get a job built in Quark, its not terrible but not as sleek as Indesign.
Indesign!
Hello, I've been in prepress for the last 25 years, and I work in quark and Indesign everyday.
In my opinion Indesign is far superior to Quark.
One of the things I like best about Indesign is the ability to jump back and forth between Photoshop and Illustrator when doing edits, it saves me time and aggravation.
Indesign just has so many features that Quark does not, I like the ink manager, the separations viewer, also the preflight function to name a few things.
Quark used to be king back in the day but I cringe every time we get a job built in Quark, its not terrible but not as sleek as Indesign.
Happyprinter
Well-known member
Like Western, we to have used Quark since their release and up til we purchased version 7 when it was released many years ago, we were very happy. Then we installed version 7 and the nightmares started. Printing problems, PDF problems on and on and on. What made us switch to Adobe Indesign finally was Quarks lack of Tech Support. VERY POOR at best. In the old days you could contact Quarks Tech Team and they were very professional and solved all our problems, then, overseas it went and the nightmares began. Hard to figure out problems when #1, you can barely speak the English language, #2 Solving problems while trying to find them in a book and reading from a script every time we called never worked. We finally tried to get in touch with their main headquarters, I believe it was in Cheyenne, WY and still may be, but no one there wanted to tackle the problems and kept passing us onto India or wherever their tech support was then. Bottom line, I was once a very big supporter of Quark but after our experiences with them would never go back unless they develop some earth shaking product that we could not live without and did not require their tech support.
MacTwidget
Well-known member
They are based in Denver, Colorado.
Also, they were sold to a private equity firm this past August. Platinum Equity in Los Angeles (Beverly Hills).
Due to their sale, I'd be concerned about the viability of QuarkXPress.
Quark rested on its laurels for far too long. They failed to listen to its customers and they stopped innovating and evolving.
I was a Quark user since 1988 and once said that that I would never give it up. I hated InDesign when it was first released, but starting about 5 years ago I gave in to InDesign and haven't looked back.
Similar threads
PressWise
|
A 30-day Fix for Managed Chaos
As any print professional knows, printing can be managed chaos. Software that solves multiple problems and provides measurable and monetizable value has a direct impact on the bottom-line. “We reduced order entry costs by about 40%.” Significant savings in a shop that turns about 500 jobs a month. Learn how……. |
