Performance and Printing:
Finally, we review and summarize the overall performance of these two kinds of software as well as the user's feedback information, especially speed, system reliability, and printability issues.
Cross media:
Question: If you are both a print designer and a web designer, what is your experience?
The core of cross-media contention is very simple: a page for printing is completely different from a page for the web. Although this is a fact that has long been recognized by everyone, it has been endlessly debated by people. Software developers are constantly working hard and they hope to incorporate a large number of web page creation functions into the design tools of printed pages. Although this brings some value to the upgrade, it ultimately makes the cross-media production process a very linear process that is very limited.
Over the past few years, a lot of non-printing design and export functions have appeared in the page layout software. It is hoped that these functional software can become the core tool in the cross-media production world. It was envisaged that tools for the production of printed documents appeared first, followed by tools for non-printing design in the form of PDF, HTML, and so on.
According to Adobe, Indesign2 is clearly faster than the current version in almost all aspects. This is a fact and an important reason for InDesign's survival. Early users tolerated many of InDesign's poor performances, which were mainly caused by tasks such as high-strength printing requirements, screen display, and printing. If Adobe's advantage is to face this area, people's complaints will be resolved. However, because Quark XPress has never had a problem with speed, the "impact" of InDesign will not drive users to change software.
Another important advantage of InDesign is its excellent recovery function. The failure of the system, although it will decline after the test but will not completely disappear, it is an important reason for the decline in productivity. Unfortunately, XPress does not restore unsaved data well when such an event occurs.
Regarding the operating system, Adobe explained that InDesign must run under the operating system of the Mac, under the native (Carbon) local mode. Quark plans to do the same at a short press conference, but it's a typical version of the 5.0 release. Of course, this may be a challenge for Adobe, but there are still many advantages to wait for confirmation, such as: better performance, direct color management, better font processing, and protective memory.
In addition to cross-media, another key factor for page layout applications is: What is the output performance of software such as printers, proofers, RIP, and prepress applications? Because Quark has always been a leader in this area, people accept the printing performance of XPress software or use XTension to modify and supplement, so it has gradually become a standard in the prepress field. Even XPress issues and multiple work environments have been recognized by people. InDesign, on the other hand, has had major problems with printing in the past, which is why printers have rejected it.
With the introduction of new software, Adobe and Quark have begun to focus on the needs of printers. Quark software's printing dialogs, although not revolutionary, have also added advanced bleeding and OPI controls, plus a preview feature.
It is clear that InDesign has more features that need to be improved and more facts need to be proven. Broadly speaking, InDesign successfully created a unified printing environment, which in some cases exceeds the corresponding performance in XPress. We did not test InDesign's printouts, but users told us that Adobe has solved most printing problems, including Global Graphics' RIP issues.
InDesign's printing dialog is well designed. The dependence on the printing device is also less, unless it requires a printing device to complete the task of a particular device. We found that almost all the functions required for printing can be implemented in this well-designed dialog box.
In earlier versions of InDesign, people created device-independent PS files by exporting a prepress file. In the latest InDesign version, people simply click "Device-independent" in the print dialog as a PPD option. The DSC Postscript file format performs equally well in a variety of trapping and typesetting software and performs well. According to Adobe, InDesign's device-related Postscript (based on PPD) also follows DSC. Adobe also said that XPress's Postscript does not comply with DSC, but many RIP manufacturers adjusted their RIP to make up for this defect.
The only downside is that black ink is either inconsistent or requires adjustments to the edges or padding of individual objects. InDesign does not allow the user to control the black ink's overprint rate within the specified range, PageMaker can. To be honest, XPress software lacks this feature.
Another aspect of printing - color management is beyond our scope. Both of these softwares have a set of control functions that will be the subject of our future reports.
in conclusion:
Both Quark XPress5 and Adobe InDesign2 are software upgrades designed to compensate for page layout and production process defects. Existing users, especially those who need to create forms or more complete PDF files, should probably upgrade their software.
InDesign can support Photoshop transparency effects. This feature is very attractive to publishers and manufacturers as well as the broad design community. XPress's HTML authoring tool is more suitable for small factories, but the lack of connection between printed web documents is cumbersome. In many ways Adobe has made up for this flaw, but it is not known that there are other reasons for people to switch from Quark XPress to Adobe InDesign. When we interviewed testers of two kinds of software, some big companies are even more interested in the new software, and they also doubt the feasibility of upgrading all their user bases, not to mention replacing the software. Compared with XPress, InDesign's strict system requirements are another obstacle to its market.
We think InDesign's performance is comparable to XPress. Some features, such as supporting transparent effects, are obviously not necessary for comparison. However, sometimes the difference between the two softwares is so small that it is difficult to favor one side. Adobe will continue to attack system vendors and some important markets, but in a mature market (has been dominated by Quark XPress control) it is difficult to win more market share with a separate product.
In the next round of cross-media production will be the arena of these two kinds of software, competition has just begun.
Finally, we review and summarize the overall performance of these two kinds of software as well as the user's feedback information, especially speed, system reliability, and printability issues.
Cross media:
Question: If you are both a print designer and a web designer, what is your experience?
The core of cross-media contention is very simple: a page for printing is completely different from a page for the web. Although this is a fact that has long been recognized by everyone, it has been endlessly debated by people. Software developers are constantly working hard and they hope to incorporate a large number of web page creation functions into the design tools of printed pages. Although this brings some value to the upgrade, it ultimately makes the cross-media production process a very linear process that is very limited.
Over the past few years, a lot of non-printing design and export functions have appeared in the page layout software. It is hoped that these functional software can become the core tool in the cross-media production world. It was envisaged that tools for the production of printed documents appeared first, followed by tools for non-printing design in the form of PDF, HTML, and so on.
According to Adobe, Indesign2 is clearly faster than the current version in almost all aspects. This is a fact and an important reason for InDesign's survival. Early users tolerated many of InDesign's poor performances, which were mainly caused by tasks such as high-strength printing requirements, screen display, and printing. If Adobe's advantage is to face this area, people's complaints will be resolved. However, because Quark XPress has never had a problem with speed, the "impact" of InDesign will not drive users to change software.
Another important advantage of InDesign is its excellent recovery function. The failure of the system, although it will decline after the test but will not completely disappear, it is an important reason for the decline in productivity. Unfortunately, XPress does not restore unsaved data well when such an event occurs.
Regarding the operating system, Adobe explained that InDesign must run under the operating system of the Mac, under the native (Carbon) local mode. Quark plans to do the same at a short press conference, but it's a typical version of the 5.0 release. Of course, this may be a challenge for Adobe, but there are still many advantages to wait for confirmation, such as: better performance, direct color management, better font processing, and protective memory.
In addition to cross-media, another key factor for page layout applications is: What is the output performance of software such as printers, proofers, RIP, and prepress applications? Because Quark has always been a leader in this area, people accept the printing performance of XPress software or use XTension to modify and supplement, so it has gradually become a standard in the prepress field. Even XPress issues and multiple work environments have been recognized by people. InDesign, on the other hand, has had major problems with printing in the past, which is why printers have rejected it.
With the introduction of new software, Adobe and Quark have begun to focus on the needs of printers. Quark software's printing dialogs, although not revolutionary, have also added advanced bleeding and OPI controls, plus a preview feature.
It is clear that InDesign has more features that need to be improved and more facts need to be proven. Broadly speaking, InDesign successfully created a unified printing environment, which in some cases exceeds the corresponding performance in XPress. We did not test InDesign's printouts, but users told us that Adobe has solved most printing problems, including Global Graphics' RIP issues.
InDesign's printing dialog is well designed. The dependence on the printing device is also less, unless it requires a printing device to complete the task of a particular device. We found that almost all the functions required for printing can be implemented in this well-designed dialog box.
In earlier versions of InDesign, people created device-independent PS files by exporting a prepress file. In the latest InDesign version, people simply click "Device-independent" in the print dialog as a PPD option. The DSC Postscript file format performs equally well in a variety of trapping and typesetting software and performs well. According to Adobe, InDesign's device-related Postscript (based on PPD) also follows DSC. Adobe also said that XPress's Postscript does not comply with DSC, but many RIP manufacturers adjusted their RIP to make up for this defect.
The only downside is that black ink is either inconsistent or requires adjustments to the edges or padding of individual objects. InDesign does not allow the user to control the black ink's overprint rate within the specified range, PageMaker can. To be honest, XPress software lacks this feature.
Another aspect of printing - color management is beyond our scope. Both of these softwares have a set of control functions that will be the subject of our future reports.
in conclusion:
Both Quark XPress5 and Adobe InDesign2 are software upgrades designed to compensate for page layout and production process defects. Existing users, especially those who need to create forms or more complete PDF files, should probably upgrade their software.
InDesign can support Photoshop transparency effects. This feature is very attractive to publishers and manufacturers as well as the broad design community. XPress's HTML authoring tool is more suitable for small factories, but the lack of connection between printed web documents is cumbersome. In many ways Adobe has made up for this flaw, but it is not known that there are other reasons for people to switch from Quark XPress to Adobe InDesign. When we interviewed testers of two kinds of software, some big companies are even more interested in the new software, and they also doubt the feasibility of upgrading all their user bases, not to mention replacing the software. Compared with XPress, InDesign's strict system requirements are another obstacle to its market.
We think InDesign's performance is comparable to XPress. Some features, such as supporting transparent effects, are obviously not necessary for comparison. However, sometimes the difference between the two softwares is so small that it is difficult to favor one side. Adobe will continue to attack system vendors and some important markets, but in a mature market (has been dominated by Quark XPress control) it is difficult to win more market share with a separate product.
In the next round of cross-media production will be the arena of these two kinds of software, competition has just begun.
How to apply and store sunscreen
Apply 15 minutes before you go outside. This allows the sunscreen (of SPF 15 or higher) to have enough time to provide the maximum benefit.
Use enough to cover your entire face and body (avoiding the eyes and mouth). An average-sized adult or child needs at least one ounce of sunscreen (about the amount it takes to fill a shot glass) to evenly cover the body from head to toe.
Sunscreen
DELIN HAIR COSMETICS , https://www.skinbeautymaskfactory.com