Back to Blog
Quarkxpress6/1/2023 Now, let's dive into a comparative analysis to see which one is really the better DTP software. Until now, we've only seen their standalone capabilities. This is where we come to the meaty part of the article - the actual comparison between QuarkXPress and InDesign. Comparisons Between QuarkXPress and InDesign Directly publish to the web and track with analytics.Color and shape imports via Adobe Capture Extension.Collaboration via Creative Cloud and Adobe Experience.Let's explore the two products a little deeper before we make a call on that decision. As such, many designers today consider InDesign to be better than QuarkXPress. The advantages don't end there because of the aforementioned additional toolkit that it sports.įrom a UI perspective, InDesign comes out on top, but that's only to be expected because it had the advantage of learning from the pitfalls of its older competitor for more than a decade. In terms of performance, InDesign is considered superior to its rival product because of the deeper integration with Adobe's other creative tools, such as Illustrator and Photoshop. We'll see some of these distinctions in the next major section of this article. The features rival Quark's product on several levels, but that's balanced out by some features that are missing here but found on XPress. InDesign was intended to be a direct competitor to QuarkXPress in many ways, it still is. Legacy file converter to transform older QuarkXPress files into the 2023 version.Illustration and graphics manipulation tools.Comprehensive desktop publishing solution.The tool is available for both Mac and Windows platforms as well, which helped it capture a large user base on the Windows side of things. The capabilities have now extended into areas such as photo editing, graphics enhancement, and more. XPress is still widely used around the world and is the de facto choice of desktop publishing tools for thousands of marketing teams. Today, however, it is an equally compelling choice for creating digital design assets such as web pages and other HTML-based output formats. Initially, it was used more for print design rather than digital distribution, but it did support the all-important PDF format even then. Since its debut in 1987, it has greatly evolved into a powerhouse application. Game over.QuarkXPress is usually known by users simply as XPress. To top it off, none of the stuff in QuarkXPress 4 actually seemed like an improvement over 3.32r5. Then, a year or so later, Mac OS X shipped, and InDesign was native and QuarkXPress wasn’t. The biggest thing I wanted in QuarkXPress was better advanced typography - and that’s exactly what InDesign offered, right from the start. As the years passed, disdain for the company turned into disdain for all things Quark. (I still remember my favorite release, which I used for years and years: 3.32r5.) QuarkXPress was fast and powerful, and once you understood the Quark way of doing the basics, it was easy to figure out the Quark way of accomplishing advanced tasks.īut the app and the company were easily conflated - everyone called them both “Quark”, and the company never really had any other app that mattered. But the app was simply outstanding up through the 3.x releases. And as Girard documents, they were arrogant, and felt as though they didn’t need to listen to their users. The company was always problematic - tech support, software updates, everything was always a pain in the ass with them. One thing that is often overstated is the notion that designers always despised QuarkXPress. What did QuarkXPressĭo - or fail to do - that saw its complete dominance ofĭesktop publishing wither in less than a decade? In short, it Reads like the fall of any empire: failed battles, growingĭiscontent among the overtaxed masses, hungry and energizedįoes, hubris, greed, and… uh, CMYK PDFs. Quark’s demise is truly the stuff of legend. Great feature by Dave Girard for Ars Technica, “How QuarkXPress Became a Mere Afterthought in Publishing”:
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |