Is Quark still the maket leader

Or does In-design now take the Lions Share

[limbo]

From this thread [webmasterworld.com]

Quark, I am most sad to say, is over.

Where? Apply for a graphic design position in the UK and I guarantee one of the job requirements will be knowledge of Quark. It's still the most recognised tool for page layout where I am based... yes, InDesign is fast becoming recognised as a competitor but not yet an *cough* 'industry standard', IMO.

[lZakl]

Now this is as controversial/heated/etc. as the Mac/PC debate. As I have hired/fired/contracted employees here, as the Production Manager (Pre-Press), I have seen people who's entire office is run with Quark, InDesign, and yes even Pagemaker. Personally? I like InDesign. I like it's interface and usability better than Quark.

As far as being the Industry leader? Either one, depending on you location, budget, corporate policies, etc. TO the best of my knowledge thay are BOTH still very active in the Publishing game. To say that one is more prominent in the field than the other is just plain closed-minded. It's like saying that because there are more PC's than Mac's, that Mac is on it's way out the door (Which a while ago, it wans't completely out, but it was being handed it's hat, but that was a different story). I come across both in my every-day activities, and there is no "standard" other than PDF. Can Quark create a stable PDF? YES Can InDesign? YES.

My point? The industry standard right now does not care what the layout program is, as long as the output is a stable postscript ready PDF. If one could accomplish page layout with Microsoft Word, and output a stable PDF, what's the difference? Both print PDF's just fine from my experience (although Quark is a little more finicky about them). InDesign AND Quark both have a long road ahead of them before EITHER is dealt out of the game.

Industry "standard" is a matter of the end-product, not the method of getting there. Now company-wide, corporate, press-room, etc. set their own standards as to which software is used to get there. But again, it would be like asking:

Which is the "standard" in mechanics for tools? Snap-On, Mac, or Craftsman? My answer: "Metric for metrics and standard for standard. A Mac 13mm and a Snap-On 13mm are almost identical. I own both. They both move the bolt/nut"

-- Zak

I use InDesign 3.0 for page layout and printing.

[monkeythumpa]

I agree, now that you can send a PDF to the printer, it doesn't matter what you used to make it. Most older companies are still using Quark, not because of the program, but their people know Quark. It is an unintuitive program that one can't "just pick up". Once you do learn it it is really cool. (Do they make it for OS X yet?) InDesign is more user friendly and more forgiving so more people are getting into it. I think as print designers retire Quark will become the next Pagemaker.

I am gonna get it from those hard core Pagemaker users!

[Josefu]

I don't think that this debate should be "heated" at all - it's all about working habits and printing standards. Almost 100% of offset printers/magazine publishers had their machines set up for Quark by the mid-1990's, and it is thanks to this that Quark managed to retain its quasi-monopoly over the industry - and if you know anything about the printing industry, once the machines are set and the printing submissions standardized and the presses off and (constantly) running, it's not easy to change systems just overnight. Many printers I know are still using Quark 3.2 on Mac OX 9.2.2 because of this.

Quark can be disliked because of its a) enormous cost for the wee application it is b) in spite of this its refusal to take the expense of upgrading in tandem with the changing technologies. In short, after some very good beginnings, they got greedy.

Actually the Quark/InDesign argument is quickly becoming moot, because PDF is becoming the new standard. No more kerning to set, no more separate font and image folders; all embedded into the same file, no more fuss. So if you can put out the format, it doesn't really matter what you make it on.

[lZakl]

I don't think that this debate should be "heated" at all -

I don't think gas prices should be sky rocketing either... But they are...

Almost 100% of offset printers/magazine publishers had their machines set up for Quark by the mid-1990's

They also used mainly Macintosh, hence the predisposition for older presses to say Mac is still the "industry leader" when this simply is not the case any longer. I come across just as many PC's as I do Mac's nowadays. And the same goes for Quark and InDesign.

and if you know anything about the printing industry...

I manage a pre-press team, I know what it would take to switch our system over, and I did implement a switch from Quark 4.0 to InDesign almost seamlessly (a few, but minor snags). Not saying it was easy, but the fact that InDesign will almost perfectly (in most cases) open a Quark document, made this switch all that much easier. Total time and cost including training was about 150 man-hours plus software cost. Not bad for getting 16 machines swiched over, and personell trained. The reason for switching? That's easy, lack of support for many PDF options, the need for a seperate distiller, and (you gussed it!) the switch to OS X. There was no version of Quark available at the time for that OS. We could have upgraded to 5.0, but why, when InDesign had 2.0 that was OS X native.

Actually the Quark/InDesign argument is quickly becoming moot, because PDF is becoming the new standard

I agree totally [as mentined in my frst post ;0)] I couldn't care less about where the PDF comes from, as long as there are no PS errors, and it prints ok, then I am good. (What really drives me nuts is a color PDF that I have to correct, converting RGB or LAB to CMYK, but that's a totally different subject!).

-- Zak

[Josefu]

Whoop! My dumb - I was scanning instead of reading and was probably ignoring words already in my head. Sorry to repeat you, sir : )

Gas prices are rising way beyond their cost of production has nothing to do with its "real" value to either the producer or the consumer (meaning how much work (money) the consumer saves by using it), nor does the rising cost of software. Both are a result of a "producing" company "taking the opportunity" to raise prices because of a consumer dependancy upon, or lack of other alternitive than, its product - or in other words, pure greed.

I could accept this if most of that "extra" profit money went to developing a better product, but this is rarely the case.

[limbo]

Thanks for the feedback on this guys - not suprised to see PDF's being praised, however we are still pretty old schol here, some (most does not) of the artwork still goes off to print as collected Quark files or EPS... depends on the type of job and the supplier drags heels accros floor.

Interestingly after some light digging (didn't want to hurt my back) I found very few print based jobs (UK) that even mentioned Indesign as required experience - although there were some, and they were actually the sort of company I would want to work for.... hmmmm. Seems to be a good barometer for the trade. Same goes for job hunting for webdesign posistions - all require CSS now which wasn't demaned 2 years ago.

I have no experience at all with Indesign, how would you rate it alongside Quark? Are they as much alike/disalike as Illustrator and Freehand? Would you say the transition between them is quite smooth? I need layout software at home but cannot afford Q6 (and don't want to run 0S9 for Q5)- Indesign seems like the obvious choice...

Monkeythumpa - Quark 6 is availablke for Mac OSX - but i think you need 10.3 + to run it, can't quite remember tho. But for resillience It beats the hell out of the last versions... which is probably more a reflection on OSX than anything else. My G4 has never crashed!, touches wood with a whistle...

[Josefu]

The transition between InDesign and Quark is smooth enough - thanks to InDesign's ability to "appropriate" any existing Quark layouts - but how smooth? Let's just say it's like a Quark upgrade where they changed all the quickKeys : )

There's a few added shortcuts that tie things into the workflow if you're working with Photoshop and Acrobat - but these you'll find easy to find for yourself should you decide to make the jump to InDesign.

[lZakl]

limbo,

If you are as well-versed with Quark as you sound, InDesign would come very naturally to you. When we switched, we had more compliments than complaints, (but I DID receive complaints mind you, as a lot of people are inept to change;0) )... Let me put it this way, if I hired tomorrow, and the person had nothing but Quark experience, that would be enough to get them in the door in an all-InDesign-environment, and conversely, one could almost “fudge” InDesign experience if brought up on Quark. It would take you all but 15 minutes to acquaint yourself with the basic tools I think. And two days max before you started with advanced layout. They're that similar IMO.

-- Zak