PageMaker vs. QuarkXpress - Aldus Corp.'s PageMaker for Windows 5.0 and Quark Inc.'s QuarkXPress desktop publishing software packages - includes related articles describing the characteristics of high-end desktop publishing software, lower-priced alternatives, and Corel Corp.'s Corel Ventura version 4.2 - Software Review - Evaluation

Home Office Computing, Jan, 1994 by Steve Morgenstern

On the other hand, since many people incorporate scanned images in their laser-printed publications, the ability to adjust the brightness, contrast, and print settings is a valuable asset, one that PageMaker and XPress provide.

More similarities? Both programs are based on a pasteboard metaphor, which means that the pages you create sit on a larger electronic blank surface where you can keep scraps of graphics or text until you need them. A Library palette in each program (new in PageMaker) is available to conveniently store and retrieve frequently reused page elements.

XPress and PageMaker also each provide in-line graphics capabilities. Insert an image within a text block as if it were simply another character, and it will stay with that text block as it reflows through the document. While there are limitations on your freedom to position in-line graphics, the capabilities are perfectly adequate for creating many illustrated layouts.

Additional capabilities can be integrated into either program through add-on modules. PageMaker's expansion technology, called Additions, is technically a bit different from XPress's XTensions, but both get the job done. More potentially significant is that the XTensions technology has been around for a while, with thousands of special-purpose add-ons already available. But then again, some of those XTensions provide functions already built into the latest version of PageMaker, such as automatic table of contents and index generation. Across the Platforms Cross-platform compatibility-- the ability to open and edit the same publication files in both the Windows and Mac versions of a program-may seem like a corporate-only concern, but it is an issue that actually comes up fairly often in small-business publishing. Writers, editors, designers, and clients who work on different computer platforms often must collaborate on a project. Cross-platform compatibility has long been a hallmark of PageMaker. With the new XPress, Quark seems to have squashed the bugs that afflicted its first Windows-based entry and achieved true cross-platform compatibility.

The other key aspect of cross-platform compatibility regards features and program structure; the Windows versions of PageMaker and XPress are now virtually identical to their respective Mac cousins. A few variations exist due to differences in the way Windows and the Mac operating system manage document linking and font handling, but anyone who has mastered either program on one platform will find familiar tools in practically the same places on the other.

Finally, both programs are speedy performers. We built graphics-intensive newsletter pages and straight textbook chapters, dragged, cut, and pasted different-size chunks within and between documents, and scrolled and jumped with abandon. While there are undoubtedly fraction-of-a-second performance differences here and there, overall, things move along at a good clip with both PageMaker and XPress.

If you are currently using the previous versions of either program, there is nothing in the current round of upgrades that seems to justify chucking your hard-won software knowledge (and existing document files) in favor of the competition. But if you're new to the high end, think carefully about what documents you must create and how you'd like to create them. The two are on a par price-wise--$895 list, as much as $300 lower from discounters--but each program has distinctive strengths in terms of its feature set and working style.