Quark vs. InDesign: A Non-guru's Perspective

Aside from being a developer, I'm also a designer so I get to play with tools like Photoshop, Illustrator, and Quark. A very recent catalog project introduced me to one of the latest incarnations of Adobe's power tools - Adobe Creative Suite 2.

I'm not made of money so, I opted for the Standard version - besides, I have my own power tools for whatever was missing from Standard and found in Premium - which were mostly web related tools, and well for that, it's just Visual Studio or bust for my area of expertise.

Part of this suite is something called InDesign, a page/document/book layout tool that is billed as the "Quark Express killer". Now, don't get me wrong, I've only had about a week of hands-on InDesign use for this catalog project, so if I'm off base, or even blasphemous with some of my statements, please humiliate me and do set me straight. This is honestly one of those times when I want to be set straight....

InDesign is no Quark killer, not by a long shot. To wit, my first ever side-by-side comparison on a few key points, sans marketing fluff:

Performance Winner: Quark (QXP)

Winner by a long shot. I started using Quark since v5. My current version is 7 and performance is exceptional, not as quick as v5, but runs rings around ID CS2.I have a dual Xeon beast, 1.5G of RAM, with more than enough disk space ( no I 'm not a gamer - I'm a developer and designer) and ID CS2 is painfully slow, and progressively gets slower the more "integrated" applications you use (Photoshop, Bridge, etc.)

ID CS2 is a memory/resource hog - I do have it as part of Creative Suite Std., so I don't know if this is true for standalone InDesign use.
I can't image this being much of a productive experience with anything less than my configuration. This is not a guess, a P4 HT box with 2G RAM, and ample disk space just struggles along. You can "save" resources by tinkering with display modes, of course, but it's still nowhere near QXP performance

Integration Winner: Adobe InDesign (ID)

Although ID as part of CS seems to be the hands down winner, "integration" is a misnomer. You don't really edit an image within ID, but you can "call" on Photoshop. Same for Illustrator files. ID does handle these files seamlessly, but that's not "integration" at all. This is marketing fluff

File Handling Winner: Adobe InDesign (ID)

Edge goes to ID CS2 but that doesn't mean Quark is a slouch. It handles all standard pre-press formats, in line with it's top dog standing in this industry. Excellent file handling capabilities, especially within the Adobe product line (as expected)

Ease of Use Winner: Adobe InDesign (ID)

Hands down, my personal choice. Anyone who has used Photoshop or Illustrator in the past will feel right at home in ID - of course with a few items to learn. A standard UI has been the hallmark of Adobe for some time now - good for them.

However, this "ease of use" is diminished but some stability issues - enough for me to say, "yeah, you better be quick with absorbing the UI, you'll need it due to some bugs and/or stability issues". See my comments on stability below. Basically, you'll need every ounce of experience with the common Adobe UI if you want to recover quickly from a disastrous "event".

This is where QXP falters. Help documentation isn't just lacking, it's horrible and even unhelpful. This is probably the single aspect of QXP that hinders more widespread acceptance. To this day, in v7, adding something like page numbers, a trivial task in much lesser document applications (MS Word comes to mind), is like a secret handshake among QXP users. It's quite easy to get frustrated and dump QXP if you are a new user - I almost did. Here's my reaction then when I purchased QXP 5 a couple of years ago: "this is the most expensive POS I've ever used". Over time you will overcome this feeling if you have the patience...

Yes, QXP leaves a "snobbish" impression on you. They could afford it in the past, but now with the legions of Photoshop users finding a seamless interface in ID, QXP will likely be relegated to a niche, nothing more - unless they improve this aspect of the product - it's not even the "product" per se - just friggin' document things properly

Stability Winner: Quark (QXP)

No problems whatsoever. It does what it's meant to do. QXP is your power tool for page layout projects. Just be patient, use the online documentation at the Quark web site when you run into some strange "how do I"? situations. Unless it's an extremely strange task, QXP is almost guaranteed to handle it. Yes, you may skip the inline help in the program itself - you'll save time, and frustration - it's just horribly written.

This is the one aspect of ID that scares me. Admittedly I'm a new user to ID, so if you can correct me, please do. For a "suite" that promises workflow nirvana, it has dangerous ways of doing things:

• Be very careful and aware of your LINKS palette. It is the "god" of your images. If an image is not in the LINKS palette, be very afraid. Yes, it IS a problem.


• Preflight is not perfect - a really bad sign. If an image is in your document, but not in the LINKS palette, ID seems to have no idea what it is. It will blow past PREFLIGHT checking, no warning, no mention, nothing.


• PACKAGING leaves a lot to be desired. ID doesn't handle this efficiently. That's just a peeve, the disastrous part is that ID itself can be confused by it's own PACKAGE folder structure such that it loses LINKS!


• You're saying, no problem, just re-link it ala "USAGE" in QXP right? You're about to enter hell, if you expect the same power QXP has in this regard. ID has no "re-learning" power - got 3000 images losing links? You've got 3000 images to link, one at a time....So you've got serious problems and no way to recover. Workflow nirvana? Go figure!

I haven't had a crash yet, but the first item in this post mentions ID CS2 as a memory/resource hog, so I would think you'd better be prepared if you have something less than the 2 system configs I mentioned in the Performance section. Just pray that whatever happens, it doesn't affect LINKS.

I've posted this to the Adobe community, and since it seems to be one of those "gremlins" - doesn't happen often, maybe. But the point is that it does - I should know. After a gallon of Peet's coffee, ordering in Chinese food for dinner and breakfast (yes next day), ugh - I know, but it tasted good then, working on a catalog with LINKS issues, trust me, I know these gremlins exist.

Which is better? I'd say it's a matter of knowing your strengths, and your workflow environment. There's a lot of talk about how Adobe InDesign will "take over" the Quark throne...not so fast! Aside from a consistent UI among Adobe applications, there's really nothing "Wow" about InDesign. I believe here's where it all plays out:

1. Quark
• improve your help/documentation and general UI command structure - like please don't make page numbering some type of secret handshake! If you do, you'll should be comfortable in your throne for about 2 releases.
2. Adobe
   
   • "Integration", shouldn't just be a marketing ploy, your audience is smarter than that - a casual user will just use Microsoft Publisher. At the minimum someone considering ID is probably experienced in some type of publication
   
   
   • Resource hog issues are another concern - "workflow" means nothing if things don't flow from system crashes..
   
   
   • Don't reinvent file handling - or at least make it smarter - this is your most serious flaw