Since I work on InDesign, I’m not going to give my subjective opinions. However, I can say that version CS3 is basically the same speed as CS2 on the same machine. The Intel Macs do run faster than PPC Macs, so it appears as if InDesign CS3 runs “smoother” on them, but you won’t see much difference on the same machine.
The new features are listed at http://www.adobe.com/products/indesign/upgrade/ .
Some text-related details that aren’t called out are: CS3 handles OpenType mark positioning and justification of marks better than CS2 and composed Unicode works better — these help Vietnamese and Thai. We also improved our handling of some obscure polytonic Greek details.

I have recently started using InDesign CS3 at work (CS2 at home).
I haven’t found many standout features yet – this is probably because so far I am just using in in the same old way ... I’m sure there are some major advances I haven’t found (and may never find), but it’s only been a few weeks.

I prefer the new interface in the CS3 versions of Photoshop, Illustrator and InDesign (Illustrator hasn’t changed as much as the others).

CS3 runs fine on older PPC Macs, it’s ’Universal’ so it runs natively on both PPC and Intel.
I’m using a 3.5-year-old PowerBook (1GB RAM) and it works perfectly.
From friends I have talked with, the main reason to upgrade is if you already have an Intel Mac, because CS2 runs like a dog on them.

However, if you need to persuade someone that you need a new Intel Mac then I’ll keep quiet ...

I have CS3 but haven’t installed it yet, I heard it’s slower on PPC and my clients don’t have it yet.

But I’m still using Quark too - in fact no fewer than 4 of my current clients insist on it. It’s still the lingua franca of book publishing altho some have switched over to InDesign.

I stick with Indesign CS3 because CS2 is not stable on mactel machines. I choose Indesign over Quark because I didn’t especially like the Quark interface when I tried it, because it’s the only app my school teaches and that some of my professors even know how to use, and because I almost never see a job listing that demands Quark experience exclusively.

Originally I decided on InDesign because it was able to handle both PageMaker and Quark files, and couldn’t afford to buy them both. I never liked Quark anyway. I’ve especially enjoyed CS2 (haven’t tried CS3 yet). I’m looking forward to the upgrade, the table and cell styles sound tempting.

Like Patty, I still prefer QuarkXPress, although at work I’ve been using both that and Adobe InDesign.

At this point it’s hard to say which I prefer - switching back and forth allows me to see both the strengths and the weaknesses of both. I wish InDesign had kerning tables but I need to learn nested styles, I think that seems like a great tool. I wish Quark let you really lock objects and guides.

I use Quark’s keyboard shortcuts in InD which made the transition much easier but it still feels like I’m speaking two languages, constantly translating from one to the other even tho the apps are more similar than different.

I’m forced to use Quark for magazine inserts because most clients and printers require it; a gradual shift over to InDesign is building in popularity.

For comissioned design work and personal typesetting InDesign CS3. It’s much the same as CS2.

For testing the fonts I make I use InDesign CS2 and CS3 by preference, but additional testing in Photoshop, Illustrator and MS Word helps decide how to define OT features and verify they work properly.

j a m e s

Since I mainly do academic and programming books, I’m a very happy TeX user.

I originally had Quark 3.31 on a Mac LC, back in the “old” days, and loved it—in fact, I still have it on that computer and occasionally use it. The program was very intuitive. But of course you know what happened to Quark, and eventually I switched to InDesign CS on my G3 so that I could have updated typesetting features that Quark wasn’t offering yet. After Quark 3.31, InDesign seemed like some Microsoft program—clunky as all get out. I still haven’t got totally comfortable with it after three years of daily use. I might just go back to Quark. Hopefully InDesign CS3 is better. The printers I use accept either Quark or InDesign, and most now prefer pdf anyway.

I don’t care for InDesign - cause I guess I’m just an old dog that doesn’t want new tricks. I’ve been with Quark from the beginning as a Beta and sometimes a Gamma tester. Works for me - and my printer enjoys the files too. I have only one customer who demanded I make new mechanicals for them in InDesign - so I bought the CS (haven’t upgraded to even 2 yet!) and worked my buns off for them. Fortunately their printer still accepts Quark, and had even upgraded to Quark 7 - so he and I get along fine.

Meanwhile Patty: I wish Quark let you really lock objects and guides.
Can’t help you lock objects by guides really do lock these days. Quark now gives you, what we once paid for, XPert Tools - among them is XPert Guides - real easy - pull your guide to where you want it - click on it twice - lock it in - and if you are like me, change the green to blue...

And you know, giving ems and strongs - is the closest I’ve come to old fashioned typesetting to date...

I’m using InDesign CS3 and I think the improved UI is worth the upgrade price. In previous versions of InDesign, I always felt like the UI was struggling to become something really useful, but wasn’t getting there. Now, it really works nicely.

I use the ME version, because I need to do Arabic and Hebrew work. I’m also using Tom Milo’s Tasmeem plug-in, which is my current favourite typesetting tool. Very, very cool.

My blue pencil, press-on type, Xacto knife, and wax heater.

:-)

In Grade 6 I started typing school projects on my Mom’s three-ton L.C. Smith manual typewriter. Often I experimented with narrower columns of type pushed to one side, with drawings, etc., in the space created. Page numbers I’d embellish with coloured pencils with a graphic suitable to the topic. More effort usually went into the design of my projects than the research. I’d spend two weeks designing a cover and one night actually writing the text. For Christmas in my last year of high school I got my own typewriter—-a Smith-Corona manual portable. With that I figured I had university beat hands down! How times have changed!

I’m hardly a type guru (ha!) but I am also a TeX user. I heard the paragraphing algorithms & maybe other parts of InDesign are based on TeX.

The only other method I’ve used was an old Mergenthaler phototypesetting machine ... nope, I’m not that old. The machine was already ancient when I started using it.

Ye Olde Compugraphic Power Page system was hard to beat. It used a modified flavor of SGML code, which made learning HTML subsequently a snap. And it had some features which even the best WYSIWYG layout programs lack today, including Auto-Tabs and precisely-controllable vertical justification.

For those who haven’t upgraded from InDesign CS2 to CS3, the major new feature — IMO — is the Table and Cell Styles. They’re still not perfect, but they add a whole new layer to production of table-heavy documents. For documents that I need to keep in CS2 format for some reason, I often build all the tables in CS3, then break the links to the styles and export the document to INX, then re-import into CS2: perfect tables in much less time.

CS3 runs peachy on my PPC G5, btw. In my experience, it’s CS2 on Intel Macs that is the “problem child.”

Old Nick -

I’m with you - sort of. I do miss the crisp type of Alphatype. Compugraphics masters were either 6 pt or 24 pt (which ever they were, Merganthaler was the other) so all point sizes were blown up or reduced from that master. What made Alphatype so wonderful is that they had several digital versions of the same face in different sizes - so when you chose say, 32 pt - you were getting it from a 36 pt master - or closer to the look of the original hot metal face...

Ahhhh

I still enjoy a good Haber rule!

To answer Elizabeth: the “multi-line” composer in InDesign 1.0 and 1.5 was based on the TeX algorithm, but we replaced it in 2.0 with a cooler, faster algorithm that we called the “paragraph composer”.