Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Hi
First time posting here, I think.
I use InDesign for a small community magazine that returns all profits to the community. We were battering on using CS6 (and doing very well) on a PC that was about ten years old. It worked perfectly until an involuntary Windows upgrade gave us the dreaded blue screen of death. We managed to save most of the data files we used (some we had backed up, others we hadn't) but the machine was pretty much fried - we simply bit the bullet and bought a new Dell. Couldn't find the disks for CS6 so thought it was time we upgraded to CC.
First disappointment was the cost. According to the ads we'd be able to pay a cut-back price for just InDesign, Photoshop and Illustrator (maybe Acrobat, but using Reader is probably enough for us) but were quite shocked to find it would cost us slightly more for those three alone than it would for the whole package, most of which we don't need. That was allayed slightly by the cut-price Black Friday deal we found but there's still a bad taste in the mouth.
Second disappointment is the performance of InDesign. So far, in the four weeks I've been using it, we have a continual problem with text frames going blank when characters or words are highlighted. This can quite easily be resolved by moving the frame handle and dropping it back into place - but that's not the point. Not only is it a real irritation - not to mention a distraction - but why is this happening on top-flight software on a brand-new machine? (Please don't give me the old Mac vs PC argument. I spent all my professional career using ID on both Macs and PCs and found there was little difference in the performance of either.) A glance through the discussion boards tells me that this seems to be a problem that has existed for some time, yet obviously hasn't been resolved.
There is also a bizarre issue of page numbers not displaying on pages that have a tint-panel background. Doesn't matter what I do, they just don't show. Again - why is something so rudimentary such a problem?
I may be a dinosaur to many of you here but I spent a long time working on software that was three or four versions behind the latest release, simply because it was tried and tested and could be relied upon to be dependable in network-based systems that were seriously deadline-oriented. The problem with text displays alone would have had our office flooded with Adobe reps dedicated to soving the problem, which shows you how big a company it was.
But I'm not in that world any longer and Adobe's dedication to the user seems to have ebbed away, somewhat. We still have deadlines, though and if we don't make them we still have printer's bills to cover. This doesn't inspire confidence or make me feel that I, as a user, particularly matter.
Which brings me to my question:
Where is the value for money in what we have? I've found the CS6 disks and could go back to that version - except that we've signed up to CC for a year, so that's not an option yet. But these niggling problems just make me feel that there will be others that I haven't come across yet, but which might seriously affect production at a crucial time.
This CC package may be ideal for a large agency with multiple users - in fact, I'm sure that's what it's aimed at. But we are spending a lot of money (for us, anyway) just for access to software that doesn't seem to work properly. Where is the thought for the smaller user who might struggle to find the resources to pay that kind of money? Are we not wanted on board?
It doesn't feel like it. Convince me I'm wrong.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@ccollins59 wrote:
I do understand the principles of layering and I promise you that I tried every possible permutation of stacking (without actually creating layers) without success
Without actually creating layers
There is the root of your problem. In order to keep the Parent Page items on top, you need to create layers.
On your parent pages, make a layer that is above the others, and put your Parent items (and only your parent items) on it.
These items will then always be above the items that you place on the lower layers.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
If the OP spent a little more time learning the application instead of writing these interminably long complaining posts he (and us) would be a lot better off!
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Exactly 😞 but he claims he is using InDesign for years...
At some point I was even wondering if maybe it's a wind-up from marketing guys looking for a new idea for a new ad 😉
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I've been using CC since it was released. I use it for both my day job and my home studio work. Two separate licenses. While I'm not wild about paying $80 a month, I can understand the reasoning for this business model. I don't like that I only have access to the software for as long as my subscription is current, but it makes sense.
My big complaints have to do with Adobe failing to address obvious problems and limitations with their software. For instance, I do not see why Illustrator and InDesign aren't multithreaded. I've had a multiple cpu/core system since early 2001. In Windows, why don't we have GPU acceleration in InDesign? Those two performance issues comprise most of the time I have to spend waiting for Illustrator or InDesign to actually do something. The computer should be waiting for me to do something, not the other way around. It seems that Adobe just doesn't care.
At least CC will run on a toaster. It's just too bad that there isn't much of a performance improvement for having comparatively great hardware...
Anyway, I have to add that it seems odd that someone who has been using InDesign for so long has had such problems with using layers and master (ahem!) parent pages. Maybe Microsoft Publisher would be a better fit? (I did not mean that as an insult.)
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
GPU performance on windows is being looked at. I trun it off on the Mac. And see no difference.
Multithreading is used in some cases. But not necessary for a lot of tasks.
What are your computer specs?
And by waiting, what do you mean?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
By waiting, I mean that I will try to apply an effect, or even just move a graphical element in InDesign and it will take sometimes several seconds for anything to happen. Illustrator is worse when making complex graphics and using the shape builder.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Most of us don't seem to have the speed issues you have.
How much RAM and spare hard disk capacity do you have?
Which (exact) version of InDesign and OS?
Have you tried setting the InDesign preferences (assuming you have suitable system specs)?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3955wx
128GB 3200MHz DDR4
8 2TB Seagate Firecuda 530s in 2 RAID10 arrays (boot, program)
400GB Intel DC 5800X (pagefile, swap/scratch)
1TB Samsung 850 Pro (misc files)
Nvidia RTX3090ti
Windows 11 22H2
CC 2023 (InDesign 18.0)
I usually work with very graphics-intensive files that have between 1 and 40+GB in linked images, and I do not like using Typical display settings. GPU rendering in Illustrator and Photoshop is instantaneous. I've made some files in InDesign that are compatible with Affinity Publisher, and they are MUCH easier to manipulate in Publisher vs. InDesign. This system is considerably faster than the i7 9700k with 32GB of ram, Nvidia 1060 6GB, and a Samsung 970 Pro I use at my day job, but it isn't much better for InDesign.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Sorry, I should have mentioned that I primarily work on what ends up being physically printed materials, and I try to match device resolution (while avoiding moire), typically 1200-2400dpi. I know it is overkill. 300dpi is fine for most things, but tiny details from vector graphics will fill in when rasterized at 300dpi in my experience. My work system can't handle this, of course, as it runs out of RAM. I typically work in lower-multi GB linked files in that instance, and keep print resolution between 300dpi at a minimum and 2400dpi max for giclee reproductions.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
1200dpi is overkill 😉 2400dpi is insane 😉
This much information really gives you nothing extra - won't make images look better in any way - only slows down your work.
Can only imagine what your printshop is thinking 😉
Vectors will be rasterised at the maximum resolution that rip can handle.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Yes, I agree, for the most part. I can set the screen for rasterization of vector artwork manually at the platemaker, so it actually is relevant in that particular niche case. Regular (laser or inkjet) printing of vector graphics does, of course, automatically rasterize at the rip's capability. I have actually noticed print quality differences going from 300-600-1200dpi for native raster artowork, and 2400 (the maximum of the print device) is requested by many of the client artists I serve. For my own use, I stick around 600 to 1200dpi.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I do not appear to be able to type today.
Anyway, I don't see why I should have to use Typical display settings instead of High Resolution/Quality, given the nature of my work and the power of my hardware. My system may not be the greatest, but it tears through multithreaded tasks like video editing/effects production. I can end up waiting (admittedly, more often in Illustrator) for an especially complex process to complete, and see the cpu usage never get higher than about 10%. There are feature request threads with considerable votes specifically devoted to the lack of multithreading in Illustrator and InDesign, and the lack of Windows GPU acceleration in InDesign, so I know that I'm not the only person bothered by these bottlenecks.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
You have not enough RAM 😉 with a bit more you could create RAM-disk 😉 should remove bottleneck 🙂
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I'm not an expert - been doing proper dtp few years ago, now mostly scripting - and don't want to offend you in any way - but do you know the difference between DPI and LPI?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I totally necroed this...
Sorry!
Lines per inch is for screen resolution on a press. 150lpi can be equivalent to around 2400dpi, depending. I've been doing printing for 23 years. Most copiers simulate less than 85lpi at 1200dpi. I have three large format machines that are natively 2400dpi by 1200dpi and two Xerox Versants that are natively 1200dpi. I know how to avoid moire when printing an image scanned at its native size at 1200dpi when printing the same size at full 1200dpi resolution, for instance. I've got dozens of artists as clients who specifically ask for me to do their scanning and printing, because they aren't happy with anyone else's work. I know I'm not an expert.