QuarkXPress 6 vs. InDesign CS: Taking Sides
In the electronic-based graphic design biz everyone has their take on this conundrum that’s been rumbling on unresolved for years now. (InDesign v 1 came out in 1999). This is David Blatner’s latest (OK last December) response, and it’s a downhearted read for me.

I’m stuck in the middle between demanding quixotic designers and conservative slow-to-change print shops that take their work. The problem for me is not which is better – clearly InDesign is miles better, on functionality/usability but also, crucially, on typography. No, the problem is that the archive is sitting there mothballed in its Quark clothes, beyond that… if only we could all jump at the same time.

Also I sympathise with the print shops – there is good cause to be conservative at the point where mistakes are more expensive, and change increases the scope for mistakes to creep in. For various reasons designers seldom see the expense they cause at the printer/repro house. When they do, they rarely care – everyone get’s paid the same, right?

David B has written some great Quark guides so I respect his judgement on this, and I have to agree. Quark does feel like a relic. What used to be an old reliable friend is shaking, feeble, old and its quirks are starting to annoy. The slick newcomer can do it all so much better. It’s an old old story.