You came to the right place, Rob. Some reading:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20604.html
http://macuser.pcpro.co.uk/stephencoles/?reviews/reviews_story.php?id=48333
http://typographi.ca/000705.php

Previous Typophile discussions:

http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/12197.html
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/34581.html
http://www.typophile.com/forums/messages/30/18254.html

The truncated conclusion: InDesign CS is an improvement over
Quark in nearly every way, typographically and otherwise.

Rob, InDesign is a slam dunk over, what was that called again?

Thanks for that Stephen.

I suspected there might have been previous discussions on InDesign/Quark, but I certainly didn't expect the strength of feelings expressed in favour of InDesign. That's really surprised me.

But then again, my mobile phone is the size of a house brick.

>the strength of feelings

Some of mine:

LOYALTY to Quark (it did, after all, save and revitalise my career as an art director, and I must have spent 10,000 hrs using it)
SUSPICION of Adobe's monopoly
DISAPPOINTMENT at implementation of OpenType features (non-existent in Quark, botched in InD)
ANGER at having to reprogram myself to use different software and keyboard commands to do almost exactly the same task in InD as in Quark.
FRUSTRATION at not being able to find the Pantone color swatches in InD 2.0 -- because there weren't any!
WARYNESS (?) of the color values associated with surprinting dropshadows in InD.
JOY at the ease of making PDFs in InD.
ANNOYANCE that I have to keep a foot in both camps -- as a freelancer with different clients who require files in different formats
EMBARRASSMENT that my students (I teach part time) will graduate proficient in InD, but with no Quark skills (the faculty chose Adobe), when that's a requirement of most entry-level jobs
RESIGNATION to the changing of the guard
AMAZEMENT at having a page design criticized for being too "Quark-y" (yeah, the grid was too evident and no transparency/dropshadow effects)
Of course, SATISFACTION with a lot of what InD does...

overall, mixed emotions.

Come on in, the water's fine.

Maybe it's because I'm a lefty or maybe because I'm a middle-child I've always sided with the underdog - Quark, Apple, Pepsi. Quark though, rested on its laurels way too long. When they finally got to OS X it was way too late and without any compelling reasons to go back. I've heard horror stories about their (off-shore?) tech support whose blanket answer is to reinstall.

As far as OT support, maybe someone could argue it was botched. But, I see it more as pioneering. The promise of OT is yet to be realized, I think. Especially with the limited support out there. (Can you imagine Flash ever getting OT support? I can't.)

Heh. I must say, I'm happily surprised to see that somebody considers Quark to be the underdog at this point.

Of course, Quark was unchallenged in their market segment for quite a few years, and their development really stagnated. But even
if one thought that InDesign's market share could end up as strong as that for Photoshop, do people think that's bad? Has having the largest market share for high end image editing hurt the development of Photoshop?

How do people feel about using apps from a bunch of different vendors? Is there anybody who used to use the Photoshop/Freehand/QuarkXPress combo who has moved to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign who can comment on how much of a plus there is from app integration, versus folks concerns about having one vendor providing multiple apps?

Cheers,

T

We've used InDesign from square one to produce all of these lovely things at Veer. I'm so glad we left our Quark and PageMaker experiences back at Adobe and EyeWire. (Yes, the Adobe Studios catalog and all of the Adobe Image Library collateral material was at one time designed in Quark. EyeWire was a Pagemaker shop.)

Joe, what do you mean by the OT support being botched? In Quark? I'm confused.

Rob:
I use InDesign 2 (on Windows) at work (a major Canadian Public Library) and I enjoy it and it works well, smoothly, and is wonderful at setting text. I just like it. If you are already using Illustrator and Photoshop, InDesign makes an excellent fit.

There are some interface inconsistencies with Illustrator and Photoshop, and that can bug you, but in all they are very nice together.

I have purchased Creative Suite Premium for my own use (on Macintosh) and the integration is better through-out though there is still more to be done. It is pretty well wholesome and delicious from my POV.

Thomas:
I can't speak to crossing the Quark with Adobe apps. I have only ever used Adobe apps. I even liked Pagemaker and thanks for bringing back the Control Panel in CS.

It looks like Macromedia Studio MX is in my very near future because of my various capacities at work, so I may be able to comment on this soon.

Nick:
What I don't understand is why you feel embarrased that your students haven't learned Quark. InD is clearly gaining traction and improving steadily, and seems the way of the future. Your students are well prepared. I don't understand why employers and potential employees both worry so much about whether you have one or the other. Can't the other be learned and conceptually we're talking about the same stuff right (text and pictures combined on a page), so you sit down, RTFM, screw around, commit to using the new one for a critical project and then you've got a pretty good idea of what goes on. I know this sounds like I'm an arrogant prick (I can be) but what I'm getting at is: are these programs that conceptually different? From what I have seen in the screenshots and movies and stuff it looks a lot the same.*

In general:
I have never had the opportunity to use Quark. I'm sure it can be learned. I'm sure it's a very capable program or the large number of companies that do use it would no longer be invested in it.

As a potential customer (and up until my recent CS purchase I was one), nothing that Quark did or said could convince me that their world was better. Truthfully I must say that their insistence on not bringing their stuff to OS X drove me mad and predjudiced me against them forever.

Jon

*I remember now: their Flash movie seems to not work when you get to the Landmarks section. I'm downloading a demo of Quark right now just to prove to myself what a reasonable guy I am...

Jon:

I am in a similar situation with always having used Adobe. I have a familiarity with Quark, but obviously much prefer ID. I didn't mean to imply I disliked ID; it's absolutely fabulous. Especially with the move to CS... mmm Pantone.

Tom:

I do have a question about ID if you know the answer, even if it is slightly off-topic for this thread. Why when ID documents are PDF'd do white/black borders where invisible objects used to be (textboxes, contentboxes) linger when viewed but not printed?

Doesn't hurt anything, just curious.

Grant, I was referring to Nick's disappointment that OT implementation in InDesign is botched (Nick's words, not mine). I only say InDesign is pioneering, because it's the only mainstream app that can use OT fonts at the moment.

Nick, there are color swatches in InD. They just happen to be in the color palette. (Imagine that.) Rather than in an obscure dialogue box. I agree with Jon, that is one aspect of the Adobe suite that's really nice - the apps all play nicely together. For the most part all the key commands are the same.

Thomas, of course Quark is the underdog. They're not Microsoft or Adobe. =) It was easy to predict the day Adobe announced InDesign (1998?). I knew then PageMaker and Quark were doomed if Adobe got InD right. (Frankly I was kind of puzzled to see PageMaker continue on for so long after InD came out.)

Furthermore, you're right about the Photoshop example. I've been impressed that Adobe has continued to innovate with Photoshop. (Afterall, they still want people to have a good reason to upgrade every year or two, right? No different from any other software maker.)

Rob Walker, one final point. Don't expect to install InDesign and "get it" immediately. If you know Illustrator, sitting in the InD saddle will feel very familiar. But when you switch, give yourself some adequate time to try stuff, read the manual, etc. For me it took half a day to get over the awkwardness of a new app and about a full week before I felt like I really understood the more complex stuff: how to use masks, masterpages, style sheets, etc.

I guess the bottom line is, I don't believe in hanging on to old tech for nostalgia's sake. For utility's sake, yes. Just don't expect to see me with a Newton. =)

Thomas asked: ... who has moved to Photoshop/Illustrator/InDesign who can comment on how much of a plus there is from app integration, versus folks concerns about having one vendor providing multiple apps?

I can comment on this. Although I'm far from expert, I have to say that is one really major reason I'm trying to work with only InDesign and not going back to Quark. The fact that everything seems to be one application. The ability to go back and forth without having to mentally switch different quick keys. The downside for me is speed. I'm using Panther and Indy CS (all CS now actually). But Quark is still faster, and not just marginally, I would call indy slug-like even. But, I use Indy because the patience pays off in the end. --- BTW Indy > GoLive < Illustrator is pretty cool too.

Nick said: EMBARRASSMENT that my students (I teach part time) will graduate proficient in InD, but with no Quark skills (the faculty chose Adobe), when that's a requirement of most entry-level jobs

This is a reality. I can relate to this. It seems most entry level jobs want friggin' ambidextrous multi-lingual multi-platform multi-media geniuses ... an unfair amount of pressure is put upon the teachers whose hands are tied.

I can also say that I have put zillions of hours into Quark and can only say that I'm happy that Adobe allows the quick-keys (and other such) to be the same app to app. I can even set my palettes up almost identically from app to app. Lurvely!

Up until recently I've managed to leave Quark alone. I do have a two clients now, one a publisher the other in the training field, who both use Quark 4.11 -- so I happily can help them. Otherwise I might not have been able to accept the work. I consider Quark a tool that I can use when I need to, but only often enough that it doesn't get dusty. However, if more clients need me to use Quark I won't turn my nose up at them. Quark isn't a way of life, it is only a tool to me.

rob,

I believe that stitching is an on-screen side effect of the "smooth line art" setting. If you turn it off (or is it on?) it should go away. It may or may not be worth it to lose the anti-aliasing. Adobe is aware of this issue, though it turns out to be really difficult to eliminate in all possible situations.

Joe,

You write:

I only say InDesign is pioneering, because it's the only mainstream app that can use OT fonts at the moment

I'm sure you and most of the peop